What are ADA lawsuits & how do you protect your business against them?

Lawsuits against businesses that do not have accessible websites are on the rise in the United States. These lawsuits all cite a lack of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The law firm Seyfarth Shaw started tracking ADA lawsuits in 2013. They say that the number of these lawsuits has increased by 320% since 2013. Many of these lawsuits are brought against small businesses that are specifically targeted because they do not have the financial resources to defend themselves. Most opt for out-of-court settlements.

But even corporations with strong legal teams have been blindsided by these lawsuits and many have had to settle, paying millions of dollars. See the examples at the end of this article.

What is ADA?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various areas of life, including employment, public accommodations, and government services.

The act was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in July 1990. In the years since then, many companies and individuals have faced lawsuits alleging violations of ADA, ranging from failure to provide reasonable accommodations to discriminatory practices.

In many cases, these lawsuits have resulted in settlements requiring the defendants to make changes to their policies and practices to ensure compliance with ADA and compensate the plaintiffs for any harm suffered.

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not explicitly mention websites, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) has interpreted ADA to apply to websites as places of public accommodation when they offer goods, services, or information to the public.

ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in places of public accommodation.

Implications for businesses

This means that businesses and organizations must ensure that their websites are accessible to individuals with disabilities, including those who are blind or visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing or have mobility or cognitive impairments.

There are no specific technical requirements or standards for website accessibility under the ADA, but the DOJ has referenced the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as a benchmark for accessibility. The WCAG are a set of technical guidelines for creating accessible websites and online content, and they are widely recognized as the industry standard for website accessibility.

ADA Lawsuit Examples

We list here some of the most notable lawsuits, but it is important to note that there are thousands of ADA-related lawsuits against small businesses each year, as they are seen as easy targets with minimal resources to defend themselves.

It is worth noting that the settlements and outcomes mentioned below may not be the current status of these cases and might change over time.

2022

National Association of the Deaf v. Amazon.com, Inc.

In this case, the National Association of the Deaf sued Amazon for failing to provide closed captioning on their Prime Video service, thereby discriminating against individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. The case is ongoing at the time of writing this article.

Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

This lawsuit alleges that Uber’s app is not accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, which violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is ongoing.

National Federation of the Blind v. U.S. Department of Education

The National Federation of the Blind sued the U.S. Department of Education for failing to ensure that its websites and online resources are accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The case is ongoing.

2021

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation

This case involved Target’s website and mobile app, which were allegedly not accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Target agreed to pay $7.4 million in a settlement.

Jolynn P. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.

This lawsuit alleges that Zoom’s virtual meeting platform is not accessible to individuals with hearing disabilities. The case is ongoing.

National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard University

Harvard University was sued for failing to provide closed captioning on its online course offerings, which allegedly discriminated against individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Harvard agreed to pay a $1.5 million settlement.

2020

Guillermo Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC

This case involved Domino’s Pizza’s website and mobile app, which were allegedly not accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which allowed a lower court ruling to stand in favor of the plaintiff.

Nanni v. Aberdeen School District

This case involved a school district’s website, which was allegedly not accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The district agreed to pay a settlement and make its website more accessible.

National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd Inc.

Scribd was sued for allegedly failing to provide accessible content to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The company agreed to pay a $1.5 million settlement and make its website more accessible.

2019

National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc.

Netflix was sued for allegedly failing to provide closed captioning for all of its streaming content, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Netflix agreed to pay a $755,000 settlement and improve its captioning practices.

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

This lawsuit alleged that Uber’s ride-sharing platform was not fully accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs, in violation of the ADA. Uber agreed to pay a $10 million settlement and make accessibility improvements.

Harty v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Amazon was sued for allegedly failing to provide accessible content for individuals with visual impairments, including screen reader technology. The case is ongoing.

2018

Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC

This case involved a blind man who was unable to order pizza from Domino’s website and mobile app due to their lack of accessibility features. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the ADA applies to websites and mobile apps, and the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

National Federation of the Blind v. HRB Digital LLC

This lawsuit alleged that H&R Block’s website and mobile app were not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. H&R Block agreed to a $45,000 settlement and to make accessibility improvements.

National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard & MIT

Harvard University and MIT were sued for allegedly failing to provide closed captioning for their online course offerings, which allegedly discriminated against individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the universities agreed to provide closed captioning for their online content.

2017

Doe v. Miami University

This case involved a student who was unable to fully access Miami University’s online courses due to a lack of accessible technology, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff, and the university agreed to make its online content more accessible.

Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

Winn-Dixie was sued for allegedly having a website that was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff, and the company agreed to make its website more accessible.

National Association of the Deaf v. VUDU, Inc.

This lawsuit alleged that VUDU’s streaming service was not fully accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and VUDU agreed to make its streaming service more accessible.

2016

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC

This case involved a blind individual who was unable to fully access Blick Art Materials’ website due to a lack of accessibility features, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff, and the company agreed to make its website more accessible.

National Federation of the Blind v. Lyft, Inc.

Lyft was sued for allegedly having a ride-sharing platform that was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Lyft agreed to make accessibility improvements.

Gorecki v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc.

This case involved a blind individual who was unable to access Dave & Buster’s website and mobile app, which allegedly violated the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff, and the company agreed to make its website and mobile app more accessible.

2015

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Harvard University

This case involved allegations that Harvard University’s online video content was not fully accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the university agreed to make its online content more accessible.

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Scribd Inc.

Scribd was sued for allegedly having a digital document-sharing platform that was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Scribd agreed to make its platform more accessible.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

This case involved a blind individual who was unable to fully access UPS’s website and mobile app, which allegedly violated the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff, and the company agreed to make its website and mobile app more accessible.

2014

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Target Corp.

Target was sued for allegedly having a website that was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Target agreed to pay a $6 million settlement and make its website more accessible.

Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.

This lawsuit alleged that Southwest Airlines’ website was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the airline agreed to make its website more accessible.

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc.

This case involved allegations that Netflix’s streaming content was not fully accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Netflix agreed to provide closed captioning for all of its streaming content.

2013

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. H&R Block, Inc.

H&R Block was sued for allegedly having a website that was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the company agreed to make its website more accessible.

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Amazon.com, Inc.

This lawsuit alleged that Amazon’s streaming content was not fully accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Amazon agreed to provide closed captioning for all of its streaming content.

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Harvard & MIT

This case involved allegations that Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s online course content was not fully accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and both universities agreed to make their online course content more accessible.

2012

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Target Corp. (Round 2)

This second lawsuit against Target was brought by the National Federation of the Blind, alleging that the company’s website was still not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, despite the settlement reached in 2008. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Target agreed to make further accessibility improvements to its website.

Access Now, Inc. v. BMI

This case involved allegations that BMI’s website was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and BMI agreed to make its website more accessible.

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (Round 2)

This second lawsuit against Netflix was brought by the National Association of the Deaf, alleging that the company had not fully complied with the closed captioning requirements of the previous settlement reached in 2012. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Netflix agreed to make further accessibility improvements to its streaming content.

2011

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Apple Inc

This lawsuit alleged that Apple’s iTunes software was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Apple agreed to make its iTunes software more accessible

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (Round 1)

This was the first lawsuit against Netflix, alleging that the company’s streaming content was not fully accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Netflix agreed to provide closed captioning for a portion of its streaming content.

Access Now, Inc. v. Priceline Group, Inc.

This lawsuit alleged that Priceline’s website was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Priceline agreed to make its website more accessible.

2010

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Target Corp. (Round 1)

This was the first major lawsuit against Target, alleging that the company’s website was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Target agreed to make its website more accessible.

Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (Round 0)

This initial action against Netflix did not result in a settlement or verdict, but it was the first time that a website accessibility case had gone to trial. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, but it set the stage for later lawsuits against Netflix and other companies.

Access Now, Inc. v. Hertz Corp.

This lawsuit alleged that Hertz’s website was not fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, in violation of the ADA. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Hertz agreed to make its website more accessible.

Want to learn more?

Read our easy-to-understand introduction to website accessibility for entrepreneurs.