Over 4,000 ADA Website Lawsuits Filed in 2024, and Retailers Top the List

U.S. courts recorded more than 4,000 digital accessibility lawsuits against websites and apps in 2024, continuing several years of steady growth — and retailers in Lifestyle, Fashion, and Clothing and Apparel consistently top the defendant list, according to the Home Furnishings Association's analysis of ADA litigation trends.

The legal exposure now carries a concrete price tag. In 2025, fast-fashion retailer Fashion Nova agreed to a $5.15 million class-action settlement after plaintiffs alleged its website was inaccessible to blind customers using screen readers. The suit claimed poor code and missing accessibility features blocked visually impaired shoppers from core functions such as browsing and purchasing.

What do the landmark rulings say?

Two appellate decisions define the current legal landscape, and they point in opposite directions.

In Robles v. Domino's Pizza, a blind customer, Guillermo Robles, could not order pizza through Domino's website and app with his screen reader. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2019 that the ADA applies to Domino's digital properties because they are "services" of a physical place of public accommodation. Domino's settled in 2022 after six years of litigation. The ruling is widely viewed as a landmark in digital accessibility.

In Gil v. Winn-Dixie, the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that a website itself is not a "place of public accommodation" and that, in that specific case, the site did not create a barrier to access.

The conflict means no single national standard governs private websites. Courts in different jurisdictions interpret the ADA's application differently, so retailers cannot rely on one clear rule.

What standard should retailers build to?

The ADA itself does not name a technical web standard. It sets outcome-based obligations: businesses open to the public must provide "full and equal enjoyment" of goods and services and ensure effective communication with people with disabilities.

Despite the statutory silence, WCAG has become the de facto benchmark:

• DOJ guidance confirms the ADA applies to web content and online services offered by public accommodations.
• DOJ enforcement actions repeatedly point to WCAG as the technical reference.
• Courts and settlement agreements frequently cite WCAG 2.0/2.1 Level AA as the compliance standard.
• In 2024, the DOJ issued a final rule requiring state and local government sites (Title II) to comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA by set deadlines.

Private retail sites under Title III have no equivalent binding rule yet. The practical interpretation: treat WCAG 2.1 AA as the baseline playbook.

Where do lawsuits actually bite?

Lawsuit data shows plaintiffs' firms actively search for inaccessible retail sites, focusing on flows that block conversions: checkout, promotions, and loyalty programs unusable with assistive technologies. You don't have to be a global giant to be targeted.

The recurring technical failures in audits and suits cluster in predictable areas:

• Product media: missing or meaningless alt text ("IMG_1234" instead of "Navy upholstered sectional sofa with chaise, left-hand facing"), zoom tools and 360-views that aren't keyboard accessible.
• Keyboard navigation: menus, filters, modals, size and color selectors, and carousels that require a mouse; missing visible focus indicators.
• Contrast: body text, prices, promotions, and buttons below WCAG contrast ratios for shoppers with low vision.
• Forms and checkout: unlabeled fields, error messages not announced to screen readers, reliance on placeholder text alone.
• Structure: incorrect heading levels that prevent assistive tech users from scanning category pages, product grids, and FAQs.
• Documents and video: untagged PDFs (lookbooks, spec sheets) and uncaptioned product videos.

How do retailers operationalize compliance?

The Home Furnishings Association outlines a six-step process. Commit internally to WCAG 2.1 AA and write it into platform selection, custom development, QA checklists, and vendor contracts. Run an accessibility audit that pairs automated scanning for obvious issues (missing alt text, low contrast, empty links) with manual testing by professionals who use screen readers and keyboard-only navigation. Prioritize fixes on flows that plaintiffs target: navigation, search, product pages, cart, checkout, account and login, promotions, and coupons.

Third-party integrations — chat widgets, pop-up promotions, review platforms, loyalty and financing widgets, booking and delivery services — can all introduce failures. The guidance: select vendors committed to WCAG 2.1 AA, test key flows with assistive technologies before launch, and spell out accessibility responsibilities in contracts.

Finally, publish an accessibility statement naming the target standard and a feedback channel. It doesn't replace compliance, but it signals good faith before a small issue becomes a formal complaint.

As lawsuits continue to rise and federal guidance increasingly points toward WCAG 2.1 AA as the expected standard, retailers who build that target into RFPs, vendor contracts, and QA processes gain both a defensible legal position — "we followed an internationally accepted standard" — and a wider-open digital front door.