ADA Lawsuits Are on the Rise, Website Complaints Biggest Targets
Lawyers say they've seen an uptick in lawsuits and expect no dip in sight for Americans with Disability filings as more companies invest in their online presence.
January 24, 2019 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted nearly 30 years ago, lawyers say lawsuit filings aren't cooling down. In fact, ADA complaints specifically against website owners are heating up.
Last February, Seyfarth Shaw reported an overall 16 percent uptick in ADA violation suits in 2017, with many suits filed over website accessibility.
"The uptick I have seen is a dramatic uptick in website accessibility lawsuits," said Marty Orlick, a San Francisco-based Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell partner. He noted that Beyonce was recently sued over her website allegedly not being ADA complaint, a publicized example of a growing trend of plaintiffs attorneys targeting website accessibility.
On Jan. 3, Beyonce's company Parkwood Entertainment was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a blind fan who alleged she wasn't able to fully use Beyonce's site because it wasn't ADA compliant. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Beyonce's company to make the site ADA compliant and monetary damages under New York City and state laws.
The possibilities for monetary damages in California and New York make those states appealing and unsurprisingly hotbeds for ADA filings, lawyers said. California was No. 1 for ADA filings with close to 3,000 in 2017, followed by Florida's 1,488 and 1,023 in New York, according to Seyfarth Shaw's 2018 report.
Unlike California and New York, Florida doesn't provide monetary damages for ADA lawsuits. Still, some plaintiffs attorneys have established a practice in ADA litigation there, said Boca Raton, Florida-based Scott Topolski of Cole Schotz.
"I think probably because the lawyers who carve out a niche for this type of work represent individuals and groups based in Florida," Topolski said. "That's the best explanation I have. Those that are filing these lawsuits are based in Florida, and for whatever reason it's been a state that has seen a large amount of lawsuits."
The Future of ADA Suits
What's more, some have questioned if serial ADA filers are committing "legal extortion."
Topolski noted an "overwhelming" amount of these ADA suits are settling, a tendency encouraged by some defense counsel to fend off their and plaintiff's expensive attorney fees.
"I will almost routinely tell clients to settle earlier than later, because the cost gets prohibitive as they go on," Topolski said.
The cycle of filling ADA claims and settling or taking to trial those claims seems to be an expected cycle with no end in sight.
"I think we can reasonably expect there will be more lawsuits about websites, apps and technology in state and federal court," said Seyfarth Shaw partner Minh Vu.
In a recent ADA case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel reversed and remanded a lower federal court's ruling that dismissed ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act charges against Domino's Pizza. On Jan. 15, the Ninth Circuit wrote that the district court erred in finding Domino's due process rights were violated by the plaintiff imposing liability.
The plaintiff didn't seek to impose liability because Domino's didn't comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. The panel also found Domino's due process rights weren't violated over the pizza food chain's claim that the U.S. Department of Justice didn't "specifically" list requirements for companies' websites to follow under the ADA.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling was significant because it unequivocally followed other courts' arguments.
"When the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, it took the position of many other federal courts and kind of put an end to those arguments made by Domino's and many other defendants," Vu said. "It was basically the only case the defense of due process and primary jurisdiction doctrine prevailed at the district court level and that's been reversed, making clear those arguments aren't persuading any judge."
However, she noted concerns that the court doesn't specifically say what exactly companies are expected to do when configuring their website or apps to ADA compliance.
"I think personally, there's some legitimacy to due process when you get into the weeds that haven't been answered, which there should be detailed guidance of what companies should be doing in revamping their website," Vu added.
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 AllTrending Stories
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