New York has witnessed a significant increase in website accessibility lawsuits at both the federal and state levels. Recent developments in case law could change the landscape regarding how public accommodations—businesses offering goods and services to the general public—litigate these cases. In New York, federal courts have dismissed cases for failure to meet all elements of a Title III Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, specifically “that defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation,” and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. New York State courts dismissed cases due to plaintiffs’ inability to prove all elements of a disparate impact or disparate treatment claim. These defenses can serve as a vital tool for defendants of such claims when navigating this evolving area of law.

In a recent lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, AI use in website remediation came into question. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against accessiBe, a company that markets a widget/overlay that uses artificial intelligence to allegedly repair the underlying code of websites to comply with the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). In the accessiBe lawsuit, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that accessiBe engaged in “misleading and false representations in its advertising, its direct marketing, its standard form correspondence with customers, and in its terms of service regarding its ‘overlay’ products.” See Parikh v. Accessibe, 24-cv-4848. AccessiBe sought leave to file a motion to dismiss, which will likely be briefed in 2025. It remains to be seen whether this lawsuit will have any impact concerning the way public accommodations choose to remediate websites, but the case serves as another example of nuanced website accessibility matters popping up in court.