Loading...
Loading content...
The other major hotbed for digital-accessibility litigation. Federal courts in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York lead the country in case filings.
Statute: NY State Human Rights Law (Exec. Law § 296) + NYC Human Rights Law
Compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under NYSHRL/NYCHRL. Punitive damages possible under NYCHRL. No automatic per-violation statutory damages like California's Unruh Act.
Same de facto WCAG 2.1 AA benchmark used in federal cases; settlements increasingly reference WCAG 2.2.
Federal ADA still applies in addition to New York state law.
The state Human Rights Law and especially the NYC Human Rights Law impose obligations that meet or exceed the ADA. NYCHRL is interpreted independently and 'liberally and broadly' in favor of plaintiffs, which makes early-stage dismissals harder for defendants. Many web-accessibility complaints couple ADA claims with NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims to capture both injunctive relief and damages.
Any individual who alleges a discriminatory experience — including tester plaintiffs, though SDNY and EDNY have tightened standing scrutiny in 2024–2025 (e.g., Erkan v. Hidalgo). State courts apply NYCHRL more permissively.
SDNY led federal courts nationally with over 1,000 website-accessibility filings in 2025. EDNY a close second. NYC Civil Court hears parallel city/state-law claims.
Standing challenges (intent to return, geographic proximity), mootness via voluntary remediation, arbitration. The trend in 2024–2026 EDNY decisions is toward stricter standing review than NYCHRL state-court cases.
Andrews v. Blick Art Materials (EDNY 2017) was an early ruling that an inaccessible website can violate Title III where the website has a sufficient nexus to a physical store. Cited in countless follow-on complaints.
Whatever the local statute says, the technical baseline is WCAG 2.1 AA. A 60-second axe-core scan will tell you where you stand.
Scan a URL