Loading...
Loading content...
Website, mobile app, and software accessibility lawsuits — typically ADA Title III claims.
On February 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest urging the federal court to reject the proposed Alcazar v. Fashion Nova class settlement, arguing the deal pays attorneys $2.52M while delivering little real accessibility relief — and that even the claims-submission website was inaccessible to screen reader users.
Defendant: Fashion Nova, Inc. (and proposed class settlement)Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California
Recent class action alleging the knife retailer's website barriers prevented a blind user from purchasing specific products, highlighting broken links and missing alt text.
Defendant: Buck Knives, Inc.Jurisdiction: United States (Federal Court)
Class action lawsuit alleging Rowing Blazers' e-commerce website is inaccessible to blind users, with significant barriers preventing navigation and transaction completion in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Defendant: Rowing Blazers Ltd.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Lawsuit alleging HP's website and affiliated platforms contain missing alternative text, broken ARIA references, unlabeled buttons, and inaccessible navigation menus that prevent blind users from independently engaging with its digital services.
Defendant: HP Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Lawsuit alleging Pete and Pedro's e-commerce website is inaccessible to blind users, preventing visually impaired individuals from accessing the men's grooming brand's products and services in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Defendant: Pete and Pedro, LLCJurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Landmark FTC action against accessibility overlay vendor accessiBe for deceptive marketing claims that their automated tool could make any website WCAG compliant within 48 hours.
Defendant: accessiBe Inc. & accessiBe Ltd.Jurisdiction: FTC Administrative (Federal Trade Commission)
Lawsuit alleging Sweetgreen's website contains access barriers to screen-reading software, preventing blind and visually impaired consumers from accessing the company's online services.
Defendant: Sweetgreen Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Class action lawsuit filed by two legally blind consumers alleging Petco's website is not accessible to individuals who use a screen reader.
Defendant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Class action lawsuit against Verizon Communications for website accessibility barriers affecting blind users, citing WCAG 2.2 as technical standard. Case settled in March 2025.
Defendant: Verizon Communications, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Class action against the fast-casual chain for website accessibility barriers, notable because Sweetgreen had previously settled a similar lawsuit in 2016.
Defendant: Sweetgreen, Inc.Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York (SDNY)
Major web accessibility class action settlement where Fashion Nova agreed to achieve substantial conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA, addressing missing alt text, redundant links, and screen reader incompatibility.
Defendant: Fashion Nova LLCJurisdiction: United States (Federal court, nationwide and California classes certified)
EDNY Judge Frederic Block dismissed a serial-filer ADA website accessibility suit, holding the plaintiff lacked standing because her allegations of intent to return were vague and the defendant had remediated the site post-filing — including by deploying an accessibility widget.
Defendant: Dr. David Hidalgo (medical practice website)Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Lawsuit alleging Panama Jack's website is not accessible to those who are blind or visually impaired, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Defendant: Panama Jack International, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Lawsuit alleging Hasbro's website contains access barriers to screen-reading software, preventing blind and visually impaired individuals from independently using the site.
Defendant: Hasbro, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Class action lawsuit alleging KitchenAid's website discriminates against blind and visually impaired consumers by not being compatible with screen-reading software.
Defendant: Whirlpool CorporationJurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Class action lawsuit claiming Target's website is not accessible to consumers who are blind or have low vision.
Defendant: Target CorporationJurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Class action alleging Morgan Stanley's website was not accessible to blind and visually impaired users.
Defendant: Morgan StanleyJurisdiction: U.S. District Court
Class action lawsuit alleging Ally Financial's website was not accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
Defendant: Ally Financial Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court
Novel California False Claims Act case where contractor failed to deliver WCAG-compliant campsite reservation system despite contractual guarantees.
Defendant: Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc.; US eDirectJurisdiction: California state court
Landmark case establishing that ADA Title III applies to websites and mobile apps. This case went through multiple appeals and reached the Supreme Court.
Defendant: Domino's Pizza LLCJurisdiction: United States (Central District of California, Ninth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court)
Landmark trial verdict requiring website accessibility, later reversed by Eleventh Circuit holding websites alone are not public accommodations under ADA.
Defendant: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida / Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Settlement agreement establishing comprehensive Talking ATM program, alternative formats policy, and website accessibility across all states where LaSalle Bank operated, negotiated through Structured Negotiations.
Defendant: LaSalle Bank Corporation (including LaSalle Bank National Association and Standard Federal Bank)Jurisdiction: United States (multi-state, structured negotiations)
Settlement agreement where Bank One (now Chase) became the first bank to commit to installing every new ATM as a Talking ATM, along with installation of 1,500 Talking ATMs and comprehensive website accessibility.
Defendant: Bank One, National AssociationJurisdiction: United States (nationwide, structured negotiations)
Amendment to settlement agreement expanding First Union's Talking ATM commitments, establishing website accessibility timeline, and implementing comprehensive alternative formats policy.
Defendant: Wachovia Corporation and Wachovia Bank (formerly First Union)Jurisdiction: United States (North Carolina and Pennsylvania, structured negotiations)
OCR resolution agreement addressing accessibility of educational technology and course materials for students with disabilities at California State University, Fullerton.
Defendant: California State University, FullertonJurisdiction: United States (Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights)
Settlement agreement where Sovereign Bank committed to install Talking ATMs at all locations, implement comprehensive alternative formats policy, and make website accessible through Structured Negotiations.
Defendant: Sovereign BankJurisdiction: United States (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other states, structured negotiations)
Settlement agreement where Washington Mutual became the first bank to offer Talking ATMs in Spanish, along with comprehensive website accessibility and alternative formats commitments.
Defendant: Washington Mutual Bank, FAJurisdiction: United States (nationwide, structured negotiations)
First agreement establishing Talking ATMs in Massachusetts, along with website accessibility and comprehensive alternative formats policy. Fleet Bank was later purchased by Bank of America.
Defendant: Fleet National BankJurisdiction: United States (Massachusetts, structured negotiations)
Landmark settlement agreement establishing the first bank commitment to make websites accessible and install Talking ATMs in multiple states. Negotiated through Structured Negotiations without filing a lawsuit.
Defendant: Bank of America, N. A. and Bank of America CorporationJurisdiction: United States (California and Florida, structured negotiations)
Settlement agreement addressing accessibility of tax preparation software and services for blind users. Case involved multiple tax software providers and tax preparation services.
Defendant: HDVest, Intuit, H & R Block, and Gilman & CiociaJurisdiction: Connecticut (state attorney general)