Web Accessibility Lawsuits Set to Increase Under Trump

A Quick Recap of the 2017 Prediction

The original article made three claims. The first was that the Department of Justice would not issue a binding rule adopting WCAG 2.0 AA as the standard for commercial websites. The second was that private litigation would fill the vacuum. The third was that site owners would be stuck with no regulatory defense and should voluntarily conform to WCAG. All three played out.

What the 2017 article did not anticipate was the scale. Federal ADA Title III filings with a web-accessibility allegation climbed from roughly 2,300 in 2018 to over 4,000 in 2021, according to UsableNet’s annual Year-End Digital Accessibility Lawsuit Report. Including state-court filings and pre-litigation demand letters, the real annual volume is estimated in the 8,000 to 10,000 range. New York, Florida, and California file the vast majority of federal cases.

What Actually Happened From 2017 to 2025

The annual UsableNet reports give the cleanest trend line. Roughly:

• 2017: ~814 federal ADA Title III web cases.
• 2018: ~2,285 — the first big jump after Trump 1’s DOJ pulled the Obama-era rulemaking.
• 2019: ~2,256 — flat, with Domino’s v. Robles settling the circuit-level question in the 9th Circuit.
• 2020: ~2,352 — pandemic year, filings roughly stable despite court closures.
• 2021: ~4,011 — nearly double. Plaintiff firms moved aggressively once courts reopened.
• 2022: ~3,255 federal, plus an estimated 5,900 state and demand-letter actions.
• 2023: ~4,605 federal — a record year.
• 2024: similar to 2023 at high four-digit levels, with a growing share of cases alleging that an accessibility overlay itself violated the ADA.

Roughly three quarters of all web accessibility lawsuits target ecommerce sites. Food service, travel and hospitality, and professional services make up most of the rest. A small number of plaintiff firms file the majority of cases.

The Court Cases That Shaped Web Accessibility Law

NFB v. Target (2006-2008) — the benchmark

The National Federation of the Blind sued Target in 2006 after blind users reported that the Target.com checkout flow was unusable with a screen reader. A Northern District of California court ruled in 2006 that the ADA applies to websites with a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation. Target settled in 2008 for $6 million plus $40,000 per year in NFB monitoring fees, covering California residents certified as a class. Target also agreed to bring Target.com into conformance with NFB’s Nonvisual Accessibility standard, which mapped to WCAG. The settlement framework — damages, injunctive relief, third-party certification — became the template for hundreds of later cases.

Gil v. Winn-Dixie (2017 trial; 2021 11th Circuit reversal)

Juan Carlos Gil, a blind plaintiff in the Southern District of Florida, won a bench trial in 2017 (Case 1:16-cv-23020). Judge Robert Scola held that Winn-Dixie.com was a “service” of a place of public accommodation and ordered the chain to conform to WCAG 2.0 AA. The decision was widely cited as proof that site owners could lose on the merits.

On April 7, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit reversed (Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 993 F.3d 1266). The panel ruled that a website, on its own, is not a “place of public accommodation” under the ADA in the Eleventh Circuit, and that the grocery chain’s site did not impose an intangible barrier to goods and services at its physical stores. The Eleventh Circuit vacated its own opinion on rehearing in December 2021 after Winn-Dixie filed for bankruptcy and the case was dismissed as moot, but the reversal stood long enough to reshape plaintiff strategy in the 11th Circuit.

Domino’s Pizza v. Robles (9th Circuit 2019)

Guillermo Robles, a blind plaintiff in the Central District of California, alleged that the Domino’s website and mobile app could not be ordered from using a screen reader. The Ninth Circuit held in January 2019 (913 F.3d 898) that the ADA does apply to Domino’s website and app because of their nexus to the physical pizza stores, and that the absence of a DOJ technical regulation did not violate due process. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2019, leaving the Ninth Circuit ruling in place. Domino’s is now the single most frequently cited opinion in web accessibility litigation.

Laufer v. Acheson Hotels (SCOTUS 2023)

Deborah Laufer, a serial ADA plaintiff who filed hundreds of Title III cases against hotel booking pages, had her suit against Acheson Hotels taken up by the Supreme Court. On December 5, 2023, SCOTUS vacated the case as moot after Laufer voluntarily dismissed it — the Court never reached the standing question. The effect was to leave intact the circuit-by-circuit rules on “tester” standing, which some circuits had begun tightening. Serial filings continue but at somewhat lower rates than before.

Marett v. Five Guys and Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby (2017)

Both cases, cited in the original 2017 article, denied motions to dismiss and let the ADA website claims proceed. Both settled before trial. Neither produced a binding circuit-level opinion, but they reinforced the pattern that district courts would not dismiss web-accessibility complaints on “no DOJ rule” grounds — the argument Hobby Lobby had hung its defense on.

The Circuit Split on Web-Only Businesses

As of 2026, federal circuits still disagree on whether a purely online business, with no physical store, counts as a “place of public accommodation” under ADA Title III:

• Yes — websites alone can be public accommodations: First, Second, and Seventh Circuits.
• No — only websites with a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation: Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.
• Mixed or unresolved: Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits.

The practical effect is that a plaintiff filing against a web-only business in New York (2nd Circuit) has a much easier path than one filing in Florida (11th). Plaintiff firms choose venues accordingly, which is why New York dominates the filing statistics.

What the DOJ Did and Didn’t Do

The Obama ANPRM (2010) and its withdrawal (2017)

The DOJ under the Obama administration published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for ADA Title III web accessibility in July 2010. Over the next seven years the rulemaking moved through various stages without producing a final rule. In December 2017, the first Trump administration’s DOJ formally withdrew the Title III web rulemaking from the agenda, along with several other regulatory projects.

The March 2022 DOJ guidance

In March 2022, the Biden DOJ issued non-binding guidance on web accessibility under the ADA. The guidance reaffirmed that the ADA applies to websites of businesses open to the public, reiterated that WCAG 2.1 AA is the de facto benchmark, and pointed site owners to existing technical standards — but it was explicitly not a binding rule.

The 2024 ADA Title II final rule (state and local government)

On April 24, 2024, the DOJ published a final rule under ADA Title II requiring state and local governments to bring their web content and mobile apps into conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The original compliance deadlines were phased at April 24, 2026 for jurisdictions with 50,000 or more residents and April 26, 2027 for smaller jurisdictions and special district governments. Those deadlines were extended by one year by the DOJ’s Interim Final Rule published April 20, 2026 (see below). Current compliance deadlines:

• April 26, 2027 for jurisdictions with 50,000 or more residents.
• April 26, 2028 for jurisdictions under 50,000 and for special district governments.

The Title II rule does not apply to private businesses, but it is the clearest federal benchmark yet for what “accessible” means as a matter of regulation. Courts considering ADA Title III cases increasingly cite WCAG 2.1 AA as the presumptive standard, with WCAG 2.2 AA (published October 2023) used as a forward-looking target.

The April 20, 2026 Interim Final Rule — deadlines extended by one year

Four days before the original April 24, 2026 compliance deadline, the DOJ published an Interim Final Rule (Federal Register 2026-07663, effective immediately) extending both Title II web accessibility deadlines by twelve months. The stated justification: the DOJ “overestimated the capabilities (whether staffing or technology) of covered entities to comply with the rule in the time frames provided.” Public-sector entities — including school districts, community colleges, state universities, and municipal governments — were the primary constituency citing implementation difficulty.

Disability-rights organizations criticized the delay forcefully. The National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota stated: “Yet again, the blind have been told to wait to live on terms of equality.” The American Council of the Blind, AAPD, and other advocacy groups echoed concerns that the extension rewards entities that delayed compliance while penalizing students, patrons, and residents who have waited years for accessible public services.

For covered public entities, the new deadlines create meaningful additional planning time but do not change the underlying WCAG 2.1 AA requirement. Entities that have already completed remediation work remain compliant. Entities that had not started face a smaller — but still substantial — task than if the original deadlines had held. Separate federal deadlines continue to apply in parallel: HHS’s May 2026 Section 1557 deadline (health programs receiving federal funds) was not extended by the DOJ IFR, and remains in force.

Still no Title III web rule

As of April 2026, the DOJ has not issued a final rule for ADA Title III (private commercial) websites, and no such rule is expected during this administration. Private businesses continue to face the same regulatory uncertainty the 2017 post described — and the April 20, 2026 Interim Final Rule extending Title II deadlines signals that the DOJ is actively slowing, not accelerating, accessibility rulemaking. WCAG 2.1 AA is the operative benchmark most courts recognize in Title III litigation, but it remains a case-by-case determination.

Under Trump’s Second Term (2025 and Beyond)

Trump returned to office in January 2025. In the first 100 days, the administration signed Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”, which replaced and strengthened the first-term’s two-for-one rule with a ten-for-one requirement. The practical effect for accessibility is consistent with 2017:

• No new ADA Title III web rule is expected during this term. The DOJ is not prioritizing the rulemaking, and the ten-for-one rule makes any new regulatory cost-imposing rule harder to push through.
• The 2024 ADA Title II rule remains in force — but the deadlines slipped. The DOJ’s Interim Final Rule of April 20, 2026 extended both Title II compliance deadlines by one year to April 26, 2027 (≥50,000 population) and April 26, 2028 (under 50,000 and special districts). The WCAG 2.1 AA requirement itself was not changed. See the April 20, 2026 IFR section above for details.
• Private litigation continues. Congressional action or a Supreme Court decision would change this; neither is on the horizon. Expect 2025-2028 federal filing volume to stay in the 4,000-5,000 range annually.
• FTC enforcement against overlay vendors is the new variable. The FTC’s January 2025 consent order against accessiBe — $1 million and a ban on deceptive performance claims — signaled that at least one federal agency is actively policing the accessibility-tech market. That enforcement posture may continue under new leadership.

Why Accessibility Overlays Make It Worse, Not Better

A large share of the 2020-2024 growth in filings involves sites that had already installed an accessibility overlay — the JavaScript widgets sold by vendors like accessiBe, UserWay, AudioEye, and EqualWeb. Plaintiff firms realized overlays do not fix underlying code, and some overlays actively interfere with assistive technology. UsableNet’s 2023 report found that roughly a quarter of targeted sites had an overlay installed at the time of the complaint. The FTC’s accessiBe consent order formalized what accessibility practitioners had said since 2019: overlays are a marketing claim, not a remediation. For a longer treatment, see the guide on accessibility overlays.

What Site Owners Should Do Right Now

The 2017 article’s one concrete recommendation — conform to WCAG voluntarily — remains the right call, just with updated standards:

1. Target WCAG 2.2 Level AA. It is the current W3C recommendation and a superset of 2.1 AA, which is the standard cited by the DOJ’s 2024 Title II rule and by most plaintiff experts. See the web accessibility checklist for a practical starting point.
2. Commission a formal accessibility audit. A VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report documents good-faith conformance. While it does not immunize you from suit, it is persuasive at the demand-letter and motion-to-dismiss stages and often stops cases before they start.
3. Fix issues at the code level, not with an overlay. An overlay on a non-compliant site is now a plaintiff-firm indicator, not a defense.
4. Keep a remediation record. Document when issues are identified and fixed. Several recent settlements have turned on whether the defendant could show an ongoing remediation effort.
5. Know the laws that actually apply to you. US site owners face ADA Title III exposure. Federal agencies and contractors face Section 508. State and local governments face the 2024 Title II rule. Companies selling to EU consumers face the European Accessibility Act, enforceable since June 28, 2025.
6. Train your procurement and vendor teams. Many lawsuits target third-party widgets — chat, ecommerce carts, checkout processors. Require WCAG conformance in vendor contracts.

Dyno Mapper’s accessibility testing tool runs scheduled WCAG scans across your full sitemap and flags regressions, which is the kind of ongoing record that helps at both the remediation stage and, if it comes to it, the defense stage.

FAQ

Can I be sued over web accessibility even if I’m a small business? Yes. ADA Title III covers businesses open to the public, and case law in most circuits now reaches small-business websites either directly or through a nexus to a physical location. Plaintiff firms file against small businesses frequently because settlements are relatively quick.

If the DOJ hasn’t issued a Title III rule, how can I lose a lawsuit? Courts have repeatedly rejected the “no DOJ rule means no liability” defense — starting with Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby in 2017 and reinforced by the Ninth Circuit in Domino’s v. Robles. Judges apply the ADA’s general non-discrimination requirement and, in most circuits, cite WCAG 2.1 AA as the operative technical benchmark.

Does targeting WCAG 2.2 AA protect me from suit? Nothing is a full shield, but documented conformance to WCAG 2.2 AA makes settlement and dismissal much easier. A current VPAT, a recent third-party audit, and a remediation log are the three artifacts plaintiff firms and courts look at.

What about accessibility overlays — aren’t they a fix? No. The FTC’s January 2025 consent order against accessiBe made this explicit, and plaintiff firms increasingly target sites that advertise overlay-based compliance. Overlays do not remediate underlying code.

Is the Eleventh Circuit’s Winn-Dixie reversal still good law? The opinion was vacated on rehearing when the case was dismissed as moot, so it is not binding precedent. But district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have continued applying the reasoning — that a website is not itself a “place of public accommodation” — which still makes the 11th a tougher venue for plaintiffs than the Second or Ninth.

Will Congress fix the ambiguity? A bipartisan bill (the Online Accessibility Act, H.R. 5813) was introduced in 2020 and again in subsequent sessions. None has advanced out of committee. Do not plan around it.

Bottom Line

The 2017 prediction held. Web accessibility lawsuits rose sharply under Trump 1, stayed high under Biden, and show every sign of continuing under Trump 2. The DOJ has not filled the ADA Title III regulatory gap, courts have filled it unevenly, and private plaintiffs fill whatever the courts do not. Target WCAG 2.2 AA, commission a real audit, fix issues in code, document remediation, and do not rely on overlays. That is the 2017 advice updated for where the law actually landed.

For the broader regulatory context, see the overviews of the ADA, Section 508, and US web accessibility laws.