A pro-accessibility rant. The ADA never mentions the web, yet website lawsuits are exploding on the back of one vague sentence. Here's the mess, and a fairer fix.
This is a first-person opinion piece by Fabio Devin, a working accessibility specialist and WordPress accessibility TRAC contributor. He strongly supports accessibility, but argues the ADA (1990) never defined digital accessibility, so website lawsuits rest on courts’ inconsistent reading of Title III’s vague ‘full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation’. The result: a wave of scam-driven ‘ADA vulture’ suits against small businesses using CMS platforms they trusted. His fix: clear digital-accessibility law, and CMSs/themes accessible by default. This is commentary, not legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for any specific case.
Key takeaways
- The ADA (1990) covers physical spaces; it never defined digital/web accessibility.
- Title III's vague 'full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation' drives website lawsuits.
- Courts split: some require a 'nexus' to a physical location, others say a website alone qualifies.
- Ambiguity fuels 'ADA vulture' suits: an instant lawsuit (vs an honest access request) usually signals a predatory lawyer.
- Real fix: clear digital-accessibility legislation, plus CMSs and themes accessible by default.
The root problem: Title III
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services… of any place of public accommodation.
ADA, Title III (the ambiguous clause)
Even for physical spaces, ‘full and equal enjoyment’ is often unrealistic (rent a bike to someone with no legs and you can adapt, but never fully equalize). The ADA was written before the web, referring to stores, restaurants and hotels, so courts are divided on whether a website is a ‘place of public accommodation’. That vagueness, not any settled rule, is what lawsuits exploit. Requests jumped from one or two ADA fix requests a year to four or five a month, without the studio even advertising accessibility services.
How courts split (and the Winn-Dixie case)
| Metric | Value | Change | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus required (e.g. 9th, 11th Circuits) | Narrow | Website must connect to a physical location to trigger ADA | A site is covered only when tied to a brick-and-mortar business. |
| Website alone qualifies (e.g. 1st Circuit) | Broad | A website by itself can be a place of public accommodation | No physical nexus needed, which the author argues is unfair without a clear written definition. |
In the landmark 2017 Winn-Dixie case, a visually impaired plaintiff (Juan Carlos Gil) sued because the site did not work with screen readers, seeking no money, only compliance. The trial court ordered WCAG 2.0 AA compliance, but the Eleventh Circuit overturned it, ruling a website alone is not a ‘place of public accommodation’, even while acknowledging the site was inaccessible. Same facts, opposite outcomes, purely on interpretation.
The 'ADA vultures' and who really profits
Genuine accessibility complaints are usually honest requests for access, not money. A lawsuit filed cold, out of the blue, typically signals a predatory lawyer, not a wronged user. ADA violations can cost $75,000 for a first incident and $150,000 for each subsequent one, plus legal fees, so killing a small business over an inherited platform flaw is both unethical and self-defeating (it can cut off access to essentials). Investigative reporting (e.g. KGW’s Portland exposé) shows the shakedown scheme is rarely driven by disabled people.
The real fix: platforms accessible by default
Over 70% of sites run on a CMS, and non-technical owners trust the platform to cover them, which makes them easy targets: roughly one in five CMS sites fails ADA standards. The first ADA complaint’s language (‘barriers the Defendant created’) is misleading, because owners created no barriers; they used the platform as intended. WordPress fares best (its official themes are accessible), but most third-party themes are not. The plea: CMSs and frameworks should be accessible by default, and if theme/plugin creators fall short, that’s where pressure belongs. Above all, write clear digital-accessibility legislation so nobody is sued from a standard nobody can precisely define.
The ADA (1990) never explicitly defined digital accessibility; it addressed physical spaces. Whether websites count is left to courts, which have ruled inconsistently.
The section barring disability discrimination in the ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of a ‘place of public accommodation’. Its vagueness is what website lawsuits hinge on.
A 2017 suit over a screen-reader-incompatible website. A trial court ordered WCAG 2.0 AA compliance, but the 11th Circuit overturned it, ruling a website alone isn’t a place of public accommodation.
A predatory, money-driven suit exploiting ADA ambiguity against small businesses, as opposed to a genuine, honest request for access from a disabled user.
Use accessible-by-default platforms and themes, fix known issues, and push for clear digital-accessibility legislation. For a specific complaint, consult a qualified attorney.
Hit by an ADA complaint or need an accessibility review? Talk to Dorve.
Start a project