DOJ's Failure To Provide Effective Guidance on Website Accessibility Requirements Under the ADA Leaves Congress as the Only Option To Address the Problem of Abusive Lawsuits
It is time for Congress to act. In December 2021, the Online Accessibility Act was introduced in the House of Representatives. Unlike the DOJ's largely useless Guidance, the proposed Act recognizes that a predictable regulatory environment is critical for businesses.
April 28, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Over the past five years, businesses with an online presence have been pummeled with lawsuits accusing them of having websites that are supposedly inaccessible to the blind and hearing impaired in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The number of such cases has gradually climbed to a rate of 10 per day, with over 4,000 cases filed in 2021 (quadrupling the number of such cases filed in 2017). The increase is the consequence of a particular void in the law—the absence of any codified achievable standards explaining what's required to have a certifiably "accessible" website. Serial plaintiffs' lawyers have enjoyed an unfair advantage, allowing them to relentlessly pursue "sue and settle" nuisance lawsuits which disproportionately affect small and mid-market companies with low operating margins.
Targeted businesses, which have aggregately paid out millions of dollars in extortive settlement payments, were eagerly waiting for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—as the agency charged with issuing regulations to carry out the force and effect of ADA—to use its regulatory authority to provide clarity as to what series of steps can be taken to certify a website's accessibility. To their chagrin, on March 18, 2022, the DOJ effectively abstained and, instead of regulating, issued a nonbinding sub-regulatory statement called Web Accessibility Guidance Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which purports to describe how businesses can ensure that their websites are accessible. Unfortunately, it does no such thing. The DOJ's ineffective course makes it all the more important for Congress to step in to curb predatory website accessibility lawsuits.
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in places of "public accommodation." The statute enumerates several accommodations (e.g., restaurants, hotels)—all physical locations—and requires them to meet certain standards of accessibility. Since the ADA predates the Internet, the legislative text imposes no obligation on businesses to make websites accessible. Nevertheless, the DOJ and certain federal courts have stretched the ADA to require websites to be accessible to disabled visitors. While it sounds like a noble goal, the problem is that there is no existing regulatory standard against which to measure accessibility. This stands in sharp contrast to heavily regulated brick and mortar businesses where, for example, every retail store owner knows that it must provide at least one sales counter that is accessible to wheelchair bound customers. Owners also know that to be accessible, a portion of the counter's surface must be at least 36 inches long and no more than 36 inches high. Owners know this because, in carrying out the provisions of the ADA, the DOJ issued the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which are legally binding standards for determining whether a facility is accessible for ADA purposes. Critically, compliance with the ADAAG acts as a safe harbor for a business sued for ADA violations. A physical business facing an ADA lawsuit can defeat that lawsuit prior to trial if an ADA accessibility expert can certify the premises as ADAAG compliant. The law recognizes, as it should, that plaintiff's lawyers cannot rebut undeniable numbers on a tape measure with their own alternative set of facts.
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 AllBig Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Court of Appeals Holds that Arbitration Agreements Can Be Formed Through ‘Clickwrap’ Process
8 minute readFTC's New 'Click To Cancel' Rule Is Here, But Will It Survive Judicial Challenge?
9 minute readEtsy Welcomed Aboard Ex-Facebook GC Colin Stretch With Baskets of Stock
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending 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