Website accessibility lawsuits under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and parallel state laws are becoming increasingly common in many jurisdictions. Thousands of these cases have been filed and, with the ability to use automated scanners and Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools, legal claims likely will become more prolific. ADA claims in general have increased exponentially, with a trend toward a focus on websites, mobile apps, and digital data in addition to physical spaces and construction and architectural barriers.
Website accessibility claims typically allege violations of the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.1 that have been recognized in a final ADA regulation as the applicable standard under the ADA and/or violations of state disability discrimination laws. Claims often include allegations that a website or mobile app is inaccessible to individuals with disabilities, denying equal access to goods or services to individuals who are blind, sight impaired, or hearing impaired. Damages sought often include injunctive relief, such as remediation of the website, app or other digital content, and attorney’s fees and expenses such as expert witness and court filing costs.
These kinds of lawsuits have been dubbed “serial ADA litigation” because of the high-volume pattern: one plaintiff may file hundreds of cases against different businesses, alleging similar “cookie-cutter” claims. Often the goal is to generate a quick settlement. Some legislators and others say the pattern is predatory and results in abusive litigation. Long used in the environmental and other contexts, “sue and settle” is a phrase now being applied to ADA website accessibility cases, particularly in Missouri.
In May 2026, Missouri’s Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation was passed. Missouri’s new law states that it “shall apply to litigation pending on August 28, 2026” and that the safe harbor provisions noted below apply to any defendant in any pending litigation on August 28, 2026 that has complied with the safe harbor provisions. It does not create immunity against website accessibility cases, but it does:
- Allow businesses a safe harbor provision of ninety (90) days after receiving notice of an alleged website or web content access violation to make good faith corrections to bring their websites or web content into compliance;
- Provide the Missouri Attorney General and Missouri residents subject to litigation alleging any website or web content access violation explicit authority to file an action or class action against a plaintiff, attorney or law firm that initiates litigation over website or web content violations, for a determination of whether such litigation is “abusive litigation;”
- Set forth factors for a court to consider in determining whether the primary purpose of such litigation is obtaining a payment from a defendant due to costs of defending the litigation, including whether the plaintiff provided the defendant with reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct the alleged barrier prior to filing suit;
- Provide that parties subject to “abusive litigation” may be awarded their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in defending the abusive litigation and even in suing the party that brought the abusive litigation; and
- Provide that the court may award punitive damages or sanctions in such cases.
Missouri is one of only a few states with laws aimed at ending, or curbing through restrictions, such suits:
- Missouri: Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation.
- Kansas: Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation [similar to Missouri’s in many respects, though Missouri’s newer law is broader].
- Colorado law provides a safe harbor for state and local government agencies.
- California remains a hotspot for litigation under Unruh Act and federal law but passed legislation requiring attorneys to report website accessibility cases to a state agency, to monitor practices.
Practical Tips For Your Business
Based on these legal developments, some steps that can be taken to try to reduce risk include:
- Have your websites checked for compliance with the ADA, WCAG, and other applicable legal standards periodically, including after content changes or product or services are added – “overlays” have been claimed ineffective;
- Ensure agreements with website, mobile app or other technology vendors contain necessary compliance requirements and appropriate safeguards;
- Keep abreast of the ADA and state and local laws and other legal changes and challenges;
- Watch for litigation in some states over what constitutes “abusive litigation;” and
- Particularly for businesses with a purely online presence, consider if you are a place of “public accommodation” within the meaning of Title III of the ADA or state laws and whether that creates legal obligations?