Title III Lawsuits: Big Companies Sued Over Web Accessibility

Author: Level Access

Federal website accessibility lawsuits filed under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) jumped 27% in 2025, reaching 3,117 cases—the highest total in three years. Here’s what Title III requires, which companies have been targeted, and what your organization should do to reduce its litigation risk.

Web accessibility lawsuits have affected companies of all sizes across virtually every industry—from fast food chains to entertainment companies, universities, and global retailers. The cases that make headlines involve recognizable brands, but the legal exposure is not limited to large corporations. Any business with a public-facing website or mobile application can receive a demand letter or be named in a lawsuit under Title III of the ADA.

This article covers seven high-profile cases, what they reveal about how Title III is enforced, and the steps organizations can take to reduce their litigation risk.

Key insights

• In 2025, plaintiffs filed 3,117 website accessibility lawsuits under ADA Title III in federal court—a 27% increase from 2024’s total of 2,452, and the highest annual figure since 2022 (Seyfarth Shaw).
• Website accessibility lawsuits accounted for 36% of all ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court in 2025.
• No industry is immune from web accessibility litigation: High-profile lawsuits have targeted organizations ranging from retailers and restaurants to entertainment companies and private universities.
• While the ADA itself does not reference a specific technical standard for compliance, WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the de facto standard used by courts in Title III cases. Businesses found to be in violation of ADA Title III can face injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and—in states like California—monetary damages.

What is a Title III case?

A Title III case is a lawsuit under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in places of public accommodation—such as hotels, restaurants, retail stores, banks, and private schools. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and many courts have interpreted Title III to extend to the websites and mobile applications of private businesses—not just their physical locations.

Title III is enforced through private lawsuits, DOJ complaints, and demand letters. In federal court, plaintiffs can seek injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees, but generally cannot recover monetary damages. However, some states go further: California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act allows plaintiffs to seek financial damages on top of federal remedies.

2025 lawsuit statistics

According to Seyfarth Shaw’s March 2026 analysis, plaintiffs filed 3,117 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court in 2025, a 27% increase from 2024 and the highest total since 2022. Website accessibility cases represented 36% of all ADA Title III federal filings (up from 28% in 2024). From 2017 through 2022, approximately 14,000 web accessibility lawsuits were filed in federal court—a trajectory 2025 has now rejoined.

Importantly, Seyfarth Shaw notes that for every lawsuit that reaches federal court, defense attorneys report handling many more demand letters that resolve privately—meaning the published filing numbers understate the true scope of litigation risk.

The standards gap escalating risk

A key driver of continued filings is the absence of clear technical requirements for digital accessibility under Title III. Unlike state and local governments—now required to meet WCAG 2.1 AA by April 2026 or 2027 (depending on population size) under the DOJ’s 2024 final rule—private businesses lack an official technical standard for ADA Title III compliance. However, courts consistently reference WCAG 2.1 AA as the de facto Title III compliance standard in private litigation, making WCAG 2.1 AA conformance a best practice for businesses to mitigate risk.

Seven companies sued over web accessibility

No industry is immune to web accessibility lawsuits. The cases below span food service, retail, entertainment, and education.

1. Robles v. Domino’s Pizza

Filed in 2016 by Guillermo Robles, the case wound through district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court before settling in 2022. The Ninth Circuit held that Title III applies to Domino’s website and mobile app, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal—leaving the ruling intact. The case reinforced that businesses with physical locations may face Title III liability when their websites or apps are inaccessible and function as gateways to their goods or services.

2. Marett v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC

A 2017 lawsuit alleged that Five Guys’ website —used to order food for pickup or delivery—lacked proper alt-text for graphics, had poorly organized navigation, and contained drop-down menus that screen-readers could not interpret, preventing customers who are blind from ordering food online. Restaurant chains are among the most frequently targeted businesses in federal accessibility lawsuits, following a familiar pattern: a user who is blind encounters digital barriers and files suit seeking injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

3. Conner v. Parkwood Entertainment, LLC

In January 2019, a class-action lawsuit alleged that Beyoncé’s official website was inaccessible to blind users, citing missing alt text, inaccessible navigation menus, and the inability to complete purchases by keyboard. The plaintiff sought a court injunction forcing Parkwood Entertainment to make the website conform to WCAG and asked for compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. The case settled out of court within months, demonstrating that celebrity brand equity offers no protection from ADA Title III lawsuits—any public-facing website is a potential target.

4. National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard University

In February 2015, the National Association of the Deaf filed suit against Harvard and another prominent research university alleging their online course videos lacked accurate captions, denying students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing equal access to free educational content. The cases against Harvard and the other institution settled in 2020, requiring the universities to caption video across their platforms and pay over $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees.

5. Colak v. Sweetgreen, Inc

In January 2024, plaintiff Ali Colak sued Sweetgreen in New York federal court under both the ADA and New York Human Rights Law, alleging that missing image descriptions, incorrectly formatted lists, and inaccessible pop-ups blocked users with visual disabilities from the menu and ordering flow. Sweetgreen had already settled a nearly identical accessibility lawsuit in 2016—making the repeat filing a clear illustration of why accessibility requires ongoing maintenance, not a one-time fix.

6. Toro v. Hasbro, Inc.

In 2023, plaintiff Luis Toro filed a class action in the Southern District of New York alleging Hasbro Pulse’s website lacked alt text, descriptive links, and accessible forms—barriers preventing screen reader users from purchasing products. The complaint simultaneously asserted violations under the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law—a compounded exposure businesses in strong civil rights states should anticipate.

7. NFB v. Scribd

In 2015, the National Federation of the Blind sued Scribd, an online digital library / e-book subscription service, alleging that its website and mobile apps were inaccessible to users who are blind because they did not work properly with screen readers. Scribd also argued that the ADA only applies to physical places. The Vermont federal court rejected that argument and held that Title III can cover businesses offering services exclusively online.

How to reduce your legal risk under ADA Title III

Worried your organization could be the next target of a web accessibility lawsuit? Minimizing risk requires more than a quick scan. Use these four proven steps to understand your exposure and work toward defensible ADA compliance:

1. Combine automated monitoring with expert-led audits. Automated scanning finds common issues quickly and at scale, but cannot detect all WCAG failures. Manual evaluation by experts—including people with disabilities—adds the context and validation that automation alone can’t provide. Both are necessary for a complete picture of your risk.
2. Unify testing data in a single accessibility platform. Consolidating findings from audits and scans across all your websites, apps, and digital assets in one place lets your team understand risk at the organizational level. It also creates documented evidence of your compliance efforts, which can be critical if you face legal action.
3. Prioritize fixes based on impact. Not all accessibility issues carry equal legal risk or have the same impact on users. Triage findings by severity and complexity, tackling critical, low-complexity items first. You should also prioritize recurring issues that repeat across pages, components, and templates, where root-cause fixes have the highest multiplier effect.
4. Get proactive by surfacing risk before production. It’s far faster and cheaper to catch accessibility issues during the build process than after launch. Embedding automated testing into your CI/CD pipeline means developers can fix problems before they go live, preventing the same issues from resurfacing in every new release.

Achieve ADA Title III compliance with confidence

ADA title III lawsuits filed in federal court have now surpassed 3,000 for two of the last four years. What’s more, inaccessible websites don’t just create litigation risk; they also create business risk. Accessibility issues exclude customers with disabilities from experiences your competitors are increasingly making available to them.

Struggling to understand your organization’s real accessibility health—including what issues may leave you vulnerable to legal action or lost business? Access the Accessibility Risk Reduction Playbook for a step-by-step framework you can use to gain clarity on your true compliance posture, prioritize the fixes that matter most, and build a defensible accessibility program.