Why ADA Compliance Matters for Your Website

Domino’s, Winn-Dixie, and Small Business Trend

Domino’s Pizza ADA Website Lawsuit (Blind Customer and Screen Reader Accessibility)

One high-profile case involved Domino’s Pizza being sued by a blind customer, Guillermo Robles, who alleged that Domino’s website and mobile app were not accessible via his screen-reader software. Robles could not order a pizza online because the Domino’s site did not support common assistive technology for the visually impaired. Domino’s argued that its website was not a “place of public accommodation” under the ADA (which traditionally covers physical locations), but a federal court in California disagreed. The court treated the website and app as extensions of Domino’s physical restaurants – essentially “auxiliary aids” that must be accessible to avoid excluding people with disabilities. In 2019, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the ADA’s mandate of “full and equal enjoyment” extends to websites and apps of businesses with physical locations, since the online services facilitate access to the goods and services of the restaurants. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Domino’s claim that it lacked “fair notice” on how to make its site accessible (even though no specific web accessibility regulations exist yet), finding that requiring compliance with reasonable standards (like WCAG guidelines) does not violate due process.

Domino’s petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, warning of a “tsunami of litigation” if websites had to be ADA-compliant. However, in October 2019 the Supreme Court denied certiorari – effectively allowing the blind customer’s lawsuit to proceed and leaving the Ninth Circuit’s pro-accessibility ruling in place. This outcome was hailed by disability advocates as affirming that the ADA covers digital services of businesses. (Domino’s ultimately reached a settlement with Robles in 2022, after spending years in litigation.) The Domino’s case put companies on notice that courts (at least in some jurisdictions) may require websites and apps to be accessible to people with disabilities under ADA Title III.

Winn-Dixie ADA Website Lawsuit (Eleventh Circuit Court Ruling)

Another prominent case is Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, involving a blind shopper who sued the Winn-Dixie grocery chain over its inaccessible website. In 2017, a federal judge in Florida found that Winn-Dixie’s website violated the ADA – the site wasn’t usable with the plaintiff’s screen reader, impeding his ability to refill prescriptions and access digital coupons – and the court issued an injunction requiring Winn-Dixie to update its website to meet web accessibility standards (WCAG 2.0). Winn-Dixie appealed, and in April 2021 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. The Eleventh Circuit held that the grocery store’s website itself was not a “place of public accommodation” as defined by the ADA, and thus merely having an inaccessible website did not violate the law. The court also concluded that Winn-Dixie’s website did not act as an “intangible barrier” to the plaintiff’s ability to shop at the physical stores, since (in the court’s view) the online features were ancillary and no purchase was directly made on the site. In short, the ADA did not require Winn-Dixie’s website to be accessible under that circuit’s interpretation. This 2021 appellate decision contrasted with the Domino’s case and other decisions, effectively creating a split in how different regions interpret ADA website obligations. (Notably, after further proceedings, the Eleventh Circuit’s Winn-Dixie opinion was vacated as moot, leaving uncertainty about the rule in that circuit going forward.) Nonetheless, the Winn-Dixie saga underscored that in some jurisdictions, courts have been more restrictive about applying the ADA to websites, especially when the site has a limited connection to the actual goods/services of a physical store.

Website Accessibility Lawsuits Targeting Small Businesses – Trends and Legal Developments

In recent years there has been an explosion of ADA web accessibility lawsuits, with many targeting small and mid-sized businesses. In fact, the number of these lawsuits has climbed sharply into the thousands per year. For example, over 4,000 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in 2024 alone in U.S. federal and state courts, and the pace in 2025 indicates nearly a 20% year-over-year increase (projecting close to 5,000 cases by end of 2025). The majority of claims are concentrated in a few states – New York, Florida, and California see the most filings – but no region is immune. These suits typically allege that a company’s website or mobile app has accessibility barriers (e.g. missing alt text, lack of screen reader compatibility, no captions, poor keyboard navigation) that deny equal access to people with disabilities.

A notable trend is that many lawsuits are filed by a relatively small number of serial plaintiffs and law firms who pursue numerous businesses. One analysis found that just 31 plaintiffs were responsible for roughly 50% of all ADA website lawsuits nationwide in a recent year. Often, the same plaintiff (sometimes working with the same attorney) will file dozens or hundreds of cases, a practice sometimes dubbed “surf-by” or “sue-and-settle” litigation. Small businesses are frequently targeted: a 2024 mid-year report showed about 66% of companies sued had annual revenues under $25 million, indicating that smaller enterprises are bearing the brunt of these web ADA claims. Many owners of modest-sized businesses, from local retailers to family restaurants, have been caught off-guard by demand letters or lawsuits claiming their websites are not ADA-compliant. Facing the prospect of hefty legal fees or damages (federal ADA penalties can reach $75,000 for a first violation), most businesses end up settling quickly by agreeing to pay a few thousand dollars and fix the website issues. This pattern has led some to criticize the lawsuits as “shakedown” tactics that exploit well-meaning small operators, even as advocates argue that enforcement (even via private lawsuits) is necessary to achieve accessible websites for all users. Legally, the landscape remains complex. Different courts have adopted different standards on whether and when websites count as “public accommodations” under the ADA. The uncertainty in the law — combined with the absence of explicit ADA web accessibility regulations for private businesses — has indeed fueled more litigation. In response, there are calls for clearer guidance: the Department of Justice has indicated that websites should be accessible under the ADA and is working on regulations, and some states have even enacted their own laws or taken steps to curb abusive lawsuits. For example, in 2023 Kansas passed the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation,” allowing businesses to countersue in cases of predatory ADA website claims. Overall, the trend of ADA website noncompliance suits shows no sign of slowing. Small businesses, in particular, are advised to be proactive – auditing and updating their websites for accessibility – both to better serve customers with disabilities and to reduce the risk of becoming the next target of a web accessibility lawsuit.

Sources:

burr.com
latimes.com
blog.usablenet.com
adasoutheast.org
disabilityrightstoday.org
uschamber.com
kmbc.com
robinsonandhenry.com
saul.com
ecomback.com
ogletree.com