Real compliance protection, not just compliance software. Our comprehensive documentation, experienced support team, and 100% success rate mean you never face an accessibility lawsuit alone.
Already received a demand letter? Contact our support team →
100%
Success Rate
Full
Documentation
2hr
Response Time
500+
Cases Supported
Serial plaintiffs and their attorneys use automated tools to identify non-compliant websites and file demand letters seeking $10,000-$150,000+ in settlements. Even frivolous lawsuits cost thousands to defend. Don't become a statistic.
4,500+
ADA web lawsuits filed in 2024
$25,000
Average settlement cost
60%
Target small/medium businesses
$100K+
Average legal defense cost
Every finding cross-referenced against 225+ verified ADA and AODA precedent cases. Backed by the largest accessibility-litigation corpus in any commercial scanner: 40,000+ lawsuits filed across the US and Canada since 2018.
Court opinions on Justia and CourtListener, DOJ consent decrees from archive.ada.gov, Lainey Feingold's structured-negotiation archive, Disability Rights Advocates filings, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, HRTO decisions, and Seyfarth Shaw's adatitleiii.com tracker.
We surface what plaintiffs have actually cited, with citations, status, and a link to the source. We never claim a scan predicts a lawsuit. Vacated and dismissed cases stay labelled so users see the full picture.
Past lawsuits citing similar issues. Not legal advice.
913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019); cert. denied
Issues cited: JAWS screen reader could not complete an online or mobile pizza order; missing button names, link names, form labels.
Outcome: Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal and held the ADA applies to a website and mobile app with a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation. Settled on remand.
Why it matters: The single most-cited authority for retailers and quick-service food brands with physical locations across the western United States.
View source452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006); class settlement 2008
Issues cited: Missing alt text on product images, mouse-only interactions, inaccessible checkout form fields.
Outcome: $6 million class damages plus $3.7 million attorney fees. Established the foundational nexus theory under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the ADA.
Why it matters: First major web accessibility class settlement. Every subsequent California retail case traces back to this ruling.
View source993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021), vacated as moot
Issues cited: Screen reader could not refill prescriptions, link a digital coupon to a rewards card, or locate stores.
Outcome: Eleventh Circuit rejected the nexus standard and held that websites are not places of public accommodation. Vacated as moot in December 2021 but the panel opinion remains the most-cited Eleventh Circuit guidance.
Why it matters: The defense-favoring outlier. Plaintiffs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama face a much harder pleading burden than plaintiffs in California, New York, or Massachusetts.
View source869 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Mass. 2012)
Issues cited: Only a small portion of Netflix Watch Instantly content carried closed captions.
Outcome: Consent decree October 2012: Netflix to caption 100 percent of its US streaming library by September 30, 2014.
Why it matters: Holds that a pure-internet business can be a place of public accommodation under Title III, and that captioning is required for streaming content.
View sourceD. Mass. consent decree 2/26/2020 (Harvard); settlement 7/21/2020 (MIT)
Issues cited: Missing or inaccurate captions on edX, MOOCs, course videos, podcasts, lecture archives. YouTube auto-captions used in place of human captions.
Outcome: Harvard approximately $1.5 million attorney fees plus injunctive remediation. MIT approximately $1.6 million attorney fees plus injunctive remediation.
Why it matters: Establishes that universities subject to Title III and Section 504 must caption publicly available online video and audio. Auto-captions are insufficient.
View sourceConsent Decree, D. Mass., March 2014
Issues cited: Tax preparation website, product, and mobile apps inaccessible to blind, deaf, and motor-impaired users.
Outcome: Five-year consent decree requiring WCAG 2.0 AA across web, mobile, and the tax filing utility by January 1, 2015. $100,000 damages plus an outside annual evaluator.
Why it matters: First major-brand DOJ consent decree on web and mobile accessibility. External independent annual evaluation is now an industry-recognized control.
View sourceConsent Decree, N.D. Cal., December 2022
Issues cited: More than 20,000 YouTube videos lacked captions or had auto-generated captions only. Podcasts lacked transcripts.
Outcome: Three-and-a-half year remediation, revised accessibility policy, independent auditor. Title II requires public universities to caption publicly available online content.
Why it matters: The benchmark for Title II YouTube and podcast captioning obligations across public higher education.
View sourceSettlement Agreement, archive.ada.gov, November 1, 2021
Issues cited: COVID-19 vaccine portal calendar not announced to screen readers, broken tab order on the consent form, insufficient color contrast on text and links.
Outcome: Rite Aid required to conform the portal to WCAG 2.1 AA within 30 days. Quarterly testing for 30 months.
Why it matters: First DOJ enforcement action to adopt WCAG 2.1 AA (rather than the older 2.0 AA) and to call out color contrast specifically.
View sourceClass action settlement approved 2025, C.D. Cal.
Issues cited: Standard image-alt, link-name, button-name, label, and color-contrast suite. Site inaccessibility for screen reader users.
Outcome: $5.15 million total fund (approximately $2.43 million to California subclass members, $2.52 million to plaintiffs' counsel). DOJ filed a Statement of Interest opposing the settlement as not fair, reasonable, and adequate under FRCP 23.
Why it matters: Largest reported web accessibility class settlement on record. Signals that DOJ now polices the adequacy of remediation and the proportion of attorney fees in class settlements.
View source2010 FC 1197; aff'd 2012 FCA 161
Issues cited: Blind plaintiff could not create a profile to apply for federal jobs and could not complete the 2006 online Census without sighted assistance.
Outcome: Federal Court ruled the Government of Canada's failure to maintain its sites to its own accessibility standards violated section 15(1) Charter equality rights. 15 months to remediate. Federal Court of Appeal affirmed.
Why it matters: Foundational Canadian federal precedent. The equivalent of NFB v. Target on the US side. Cross-applies WCAG-style obligations to government sites.
View source601 U.S. ___ (2023), 144 S. Ct. 18
Issues cited: Hotel reservation websites did not disclose ADA accessibility information about guest rooms (28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)).
Outcome: Supreme Court dismissed 9-0 as moot. The standing question for ADA testers was left unresolved and the circuit split survives.
Why it matters: Even after dismissal, hotel reservation rule plaintiffs continue to file. The deeper consequence: tester standing remains an open question and lower courts are still filtering by jurisdiction.
View sourceSettlement Agreement, lflegal.com, November 2024
Issues cited: Four blind clients identified barriers across Schwab digital properties (web and mobile).
Outcome: Schwab digital properties remediation against WCAG 2.2 AA, including the new focus-not-obscured criterion.
Why it matters: Sets WCAG 2.2 AA as the de facto plaintiff bar standard for major financial services digital products, raising the bar from the 2.1 AA seen in DOJ orders.
View sourceRun a free Compliable scan to see your findings mapped to specific cases plaintiffs have actually cited. Every finding carries the case name, citation, status, and a link to the source.
Run a free Compliable scanAlso available: view a sample precedent-aware report.
The top six defendant industries by 2024 federal filing volume, drawn from the UsableNet annual report and Seyfarth Shaw's ADA Title III tracker, with the cases plaintiffs cite most.
Past lawsuits citing similar issues. Not legal advice.
Roughly 77 percent of 2024 federal filings
Representative cases
Dominos, Five Guys, Dunkin', Texas Roadhouse
Representative cases
Reservation rule (28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)) filings still active post-Acheson
Representative cases
Driven by COVID-19 vaccine portal enforcement actions
Representative cases
Captioning, MOOCs, and library systems
Representative cases
Banking, brokerage, credit unions, and fintech
Representative cases
US federal circuits split on whether a website is a place of public accommodation. The same finding carries different weight in San Francisco, Brooklyn, Miami, and Toronto. Compliable's risk score adjusts for the forum your plaintiff is most likely to file in.
9th and 1st Circuits, plus California Unruh
Robles binds in the 9th Circuit. NAD v. Netflix and the NAD v. Harvard / MIT consent decrees anchor the 1st Circuit. California Unruh adds statutory damages of $4,000 per violation, which is why class-action vehicles like Alcazar v. Fashion Nova end at $5 million plus.
2nd and 4th Circuits
2nd Circuit (S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y.) accepts the nexus theory and the website-as-public-accommodation theory: high filing volume from serial plaintiffs. 4th Circuit has fewer published opinions but accepts standard nexus pleadings.
11th Circuit; 9th Circuit for online-only
Gil v. Winn-Dixie (vacated as moot but persuasive) rejects the nexus theory in the 11th Circuit. Earll v. eBay limits 9th Circuit reach for purely online businesses with no physical nexus.
Post-Martinez v. Cot'n Wash (2022)
California appellate court held that online-only retailers without a California physical presence fall outside Unruh's reach. The narrow door remains: brick-and-mortar nexus or in-state physical operations still expose under Unruh.
Ontario's AODA is now backed by administrative monetary penalties (post-2018 amendments). Federal sites and federally regulated industries fall under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA). Provincial human rights tribunals (HRTO and counterparts in BC, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba) hear individual complaints. Donna Jodhan v. Canada (2010 FC 1197) remains the foundational Charter precedent.
The European Accessibility Act (EAA) has been in force since June 28, 2025. Early enforcement signals: ApiDV and Droit Pluriel emergency injunctions against Auchan, Carrefour, E. Leclerc, and Picard in France (November 2025); Norwegian Health Authority compulsory fine against the HelsaMi patient app (late 2025). Compliable maps findings to EN 301 549 alongside WCAG.
When you're a Compliable customer, you get protection that other accessibility solutions simply don't offer.
Complete compliance documentation backing when you're a protected Compliable customer. Real evidence, not just promises.
Direct access to experienced compliance specialists who have successfully helped hundreds of businesses.
Court-ready documentation proving your accessibility efforts, remediation timeline, and ongoing compliance monitoring.
Our compliance support team begins working on your case within hours, not days. Time matters in compliance.
Zero successful lawsuits against Compliable-protected customers. Our track record speaks for itself.
Step-by-step guidance on responding to demand letters and demonstrating your compliance efforts.
From demand letter to resolution, our team handles everything
A plaintiff alleges your website violates ADA accessibility requirements and demands settlement.
Contact our support team immediatelyOur team reviews your compliance status, documentation, and the validity of claims within hours.
Support team assigned to your caseWe compile comprehensive compliance documentation demonstrating your accessibility efforts.
You focus on your businessMost cases are dismissed or settled favorably using our documented compliance evidence.
Average resolution: 30-60 daysOur compliance support provides comprehensive coverage for ADA web accessibility challenges.
If you're sued for web accessibility while using Compliable and following our recommendations, we will:
Real customers who faced real lawsuits, and won
“We received a demand letter on a Friday afternoon asking for $45,000. I contacted Compliable's support team and had help within hours. The case was dismissed in 3 weeks.”
Robert Martinez
CEO, Regional E-commerce Company
“As a small business owner, I was terrified when I got sued. Compliable's support team handled everything. Their documentation showing our compliance efforts was the key to getting the case thrown out.”
Amanda Chen
Owner, Boutique Hotel Chain
“The comprehensive documentation gave my board confidence that we had real protection, not just another software tool. When we did get a demand letter, Compliable delivered exactly as promised.”
James Wilson
General Counsel, Healthcare Network
Everything you need to know about our compliance support
Small and medium businesses shouldn't have to choose between expensive legal defense and risking their livelihood. Our compliance support makes real protection accessible to businesses of all sizes, because everyone deserves to focus on their business, not legal threats.