Florida Stays Near Top of Web-Access Lawsuit Venues as New Filings Flatten
Florida federal courts claim second place in a state-by-state look at new lawsuit filings.
May 06, 2020 at 11:38 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Florida trails only New York in the number of website access lawsuits filed under the American with Disabilities Act based on a study by Seyfarth Shaw.
But after explosive growth in the number of lawsuits filed in 2018, it appears the once-rising tide of litigation has leveled off, the study found.
In 2019, 2,256 ADA web access suits were filed in the nation's federal courts compared with just two more than that in 2018, according to Seyfarth labor and employment partners Minh Vu and Kristina Launey, who keep a tally of ADA lawsuits and blog about their findings.
The latest ADA blog post comparing the latest year-over-year data is titled "The Curve Has Flattened for Federal Website Accessibility Lawsuits."
For sure, 2019 saw plenty of new suits. But on a year-over-year basis, the number was flat, the blog authors said. By contrast, there was "an explosive 177% increase" from 814 in 2017.
But some things don't change. The New York federal court system remains the dominant place for new filings just as in recent years, the attorneys found. The Empire State saw 1,354 web access suits launched in 2019, down from 1,564 in 2018.
Meanwhile, Florida held steady with the second-highest tally with 526 cases lodged in 2019, down from 576 in 2018.
In a change for the distant third and fourth leaders, California at 120 and Pennsylvania at 92 moved past Illinois at 91 and Massachusetts at 33 in 2019 for those spots. At the same time, the number of website-accessibility actions for the four top states more than doubled year over year, Vu and Launey said.
In other findings, the partners pointed to the lack of any surge in new cases after the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pro-plaintiff Robles v. Domino's decision on web access.
Vu and Launey noted they predicted no high court review of the Robles decision would lead to an increase in case filings. But thy were off. Before the Supreme Court's Oct. 7, 2019, refusal to hear the case, an average of seven lawsuits were filed a day. Afterward, an average of four a day were filed.
They also reported that "while the greatest number of suits were filed in July and August (258 and 270, respectively), monthly filings then decreased by nearly half for each of the last four months of the year."
In 2020 so far, they added, "The number of filings went back up for the first three months … but were still lower that the number of filings in the same months in 2019."
Over the last decade, the growing web access area of litigation — in which disabled people, citing the ADA, sue websites that allegedly aren't coded to work with assisting technologies such as screen readers — has generated controversy.
As the litigation grew rapidly over the last decade, some have publicly criticized what they see as a plaintiffs lawyer-driven glut of suits that seem mostly geared to collecting attorney fees, especially when some states impose seemingly low caps on amounts plaintiffs can recover.
But in a 2019 interview with the New York Law Journal, Joseph Mizrahi of Cohen & Mizrahi, a leading New York firm bringing web access suits, defended the need for litigation.
"We have many clients, and over the course of their lives they have visited many websites that they cannot access, and they want to enjoy the internet just like anybody else does," he said in the interview.
The ADA "allows for attorney fees. There is a lot of work that goes into preparing, litigating and monitoring compliance," Mizrahi said. "So which attorney is going to work for free?"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readUS Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readNorth Carolina Courts Switch to Digital, Face Extreme Weather in 2024
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1California's Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI
- 2Justin Baldoni Sues Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for $400M in New Step in 'It Ends With Us' Fight
- 3Top Leadership Changes Coming for NJ Attorney General's Office
- 4SCOTUSBlog Co-Founder Tom Goldstein Misused Law Firm Funds, According to Federal Indictment
- 5Patreon Hit With Lawsuit for Allegedly Diverting Subscriber Data to Meta
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250