ADA Litigation Update

Shifting ADA Enforcement Landscape

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to evolve in its application to the digital world, driven by a combination of regulatory clarification and sustained private litigation. The most significant recent change came in April 2024 when the Department of Justice issued a final rule under Title II of the ADA, which applies to state and local governments. This rule sets explicit standards—conformance to WCAG 2.1 Level AA—for web content, mobile apps, and other digital services, covering everything from online forms to embedded videos and PDFs. Larger public entities face a hard deadline of April 24, 2026, to meet these requirements, with smaller ones getting until 2027.

This deadline matters because it ends years of uncertainty: previously, public entities operated under general nondiscrimination obligations without detailed technical benchmarks, leading to inconsistent compliance and enforcement. Now, failure to meet the standard after the deadline exposes governments to DOJ investigations, private lawsuits under Title II, and potential remediation costs running into millions for large systems.

In the private sector, under Title III covering public accommodations, website accessibility litigation shows no sign of abating meaningfully. Federal Title III filings totaled 8,667 in 2025, down only slightly from 2024, while specialized trackers report over 5,000 digital accessibility cases in 2025 alone—a figure bolstered by surges in certain states and repeat suits against non-compliant companies. Retailers, especially e-commerce sites, remain prime targets, with plaintiffs often seeking injunctive relief and statutory damages under state laws like California's Unruh Act.

A notable recent development is the DOJ's February 2026 Statement of Interest opposing a proposed class-action settlement in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova. The department argued the deal provided inadequate benefits to blind class members while awarding substantial attorney fees, and even criticized the settlement website's own accessibility. This intervention signals greater federal oversight of private resolutions, potentially making broad class settlements harder to achieve and encouraging defendants to pursue individual fixes or confidential agreements instead.

These cross-currents create trade-offs: clearer rules for public entities may spur broader improvements but strain budgets already facing competing priorities, while private litigation's persistence—despite some predictions of decline—keeps pressure on businesses but risks being seen as attorney-driven rather than access-focused. The stakes include not just legal defense costs, often in the six figures per case, but reputational damage, lost customers, and the broader exclusion of people with disabilities from essential online services.