The most widely-accepted online accessibility standards worldwide are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, created by the World Wide Web (W.W.W) Consortium.
The WCAG compliance levels are AAA, AA, and A. AA compliance is typically regarded as sufficient web accessibility strictly for the majority of legal reasons throughout the world, USA inclusive.
The Rehabilitation Act – 1973 in America, Section 508, which mandates compliance with its regulations for all federal agencies alongside any state or municipal resources receiving federal funds, is based on WCAG 2.0 AA.
Similar laws have been adopted by numerous other nations, with AA conformance serving as the benchmark.
Top 5 Lawsuits Regarding Web Accessibility
There were almost 2,250 web accessibility cases filed in 2018.
There are 31% more lawsuits relating to web accessibility in 2019.
The number of lawsuits related to web accessibility increased by 181% between 2017-2019.
Jump to 2022 and over 4,000 ADA-related lawsuits were filed.
2023 isn’t over yet, and it’s already beat out the record set the previous year with nearly 5,000 ADA-related lawsuits filed.
These examples, which span every industry, involve both small firms and some recognizable brands in the world.
Let’s take a look at five of the most substantial cases over the last several years. These are the cases that set precedent, remapped the ADA landscape, or contributed to changes in the law.
Netflix vs. NAD (2012)
One of the earliest well-known web accessibility cases was the video streaming service Netflix.
Back in 2012 Netflix wasn’t yet the streaming behemoth it is now. The Netflix v. NAD case, however, was a significant web accessibility lawsuit.
It happened to be one of many for Netflix, which in the long run battled with other accessibility difficulties. In this situation, the National Association for the handicapped (Deaf) filed a lawsuit against Netflix in Massachusetts, saying Netflix failed to provide equitable services for clients with deafness or hearing loss.
According to a judge in Massachusetts, ADA regulations apply to all or most online-only services as well. This happened to be a relatively new job that would eventually have an impact on many different types of enterprises.
Winn-Dixie v. Gil (2017)
Thousands more cases related to web accessibility have since been filed, but this one was among the earliest.
Carlos Gil sued the popular grocery store, Winn-Dixie, in Florida because its website was inaccessible to those with visual impairments.
In contrast to many previous, comparable instances that were settled adequately out of court, the Gil v. Winn-Dixie case was tried in court.
This case established a precedent in Florida that businesses’ websites must be equally accessible.
The judge who rendered the decision in favor of the prosecutor – Gil stated, “Winn-Dixie violated the ADA due to the inaccessibility of its store website has actively denied Gil the full enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, goods, accommodation or advantages that Winn-Dixie offers to its prospective customers.”
Five Guys Enterprise v. Markett (2017)
Multiple web accessibility lawsuits against Five Guys Burger and Fries show the necessity for proactive effort. You may be more familiar with the legal concept of “double jeopardy,” which prevents someone from being tried twice for the same offense. However, the regulations differ slightly in court.
In 2017, while redesigning their website for accessibility, Five Guys Burger and Fries learned this the difficult way when the company was sued for web accessibility.
Although unjust, this might sometimes make sense. Many civil court lawsuits, including those involving web accessibility, call for corrective action rather than financial compensation.
A second lawsuit can be required if a company has been ordered and sued to make its website accessible but has not done so.
Regardless of whether this was the case for Five Guys, this whole case demonstrated the value of taking the initiative when it boils down to web accessibility.
Nike Inc. v. Mendizabal (2017)
In 2017, Mendizabal Maria sued Nike and other well-known companies for failing to make their websites accessible to customers with impaired vision.
Nike happens to be one of many fashion companies that have been sued for accessibility issues; the websites in question don’t work well with screen readers and don’t have alt-text as well as empty links.
These happen to be some of the most widespread web accessibility problems, and these lawsuits emphasize how crucial it is to look for them.
Domino's Pizza LLC v. Robles (ongoing)
Domino’s case went through numerous trials and appeals until the Supreme Court ultimately rejected it.
Perhaps the most significant web accessibility case in American history to date is Domino’s v., Robles.
This case, which started in California, came very close to being heard by the American Supreme Court, which would have clarified the laws governing web accessibility and the responsibilities of businesses.
The case was transferred to another subsidiary court for further proceedings after the Supreme Court declined to hear it.
The overall conclusion is in absolute favor of the ADA’s web accessibility major requirements, which are supported by the plaintiff’s prior and most recent victories in court decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court. State courts will be in charge of interpreting the ADA because there will be no overbroad federal ruling on the matter.
3 Key Lessons from Lawsuits Regarding Web Accessibility
Utilize tools for testing and address typical issues
You can get a report from a testing tool like Accessible Metrics that includes accessibility problems that are frequently cited in legal complaints. Web accessibility may appear like an unreasonable requirement to businesses concerned with the costs of website modification and potential legal trouble.
However, several websites under the legal spotlight lack similar components, which are rather simple to add.
Several of these issues can be found by automated testing methods, and many are easily resolved by adding text.
Websites under legal review typically lack these components:
- No alternative text for pictures or images
- Links with no content or text
- Duplicate links
Proactiveness and dependability
The Markett v. Five Guys Enterprises lawsuit case demonstrates that a company can be held accountable even while making website updates.
Being proactive is the greatest way to actively avoid a costly legal case—or several cases.
To ensure accessibility as you add content and make changes, test your website early, fix issues, and actively test it again frequently.
It’s obvious that websites need to be treated with the same care as physical establishments—you wouldn’t build a restaurant or store before making sure it’s ADA-compliant and activities accessible to all customers.
Utilize web accessibility, don’t oppose it
Businesses from every sector, including transportation, retail, fashion, and food, have attempted to circumvent web accessibility rules without success.
Arguments that equivalent services are offered elsewhere, that the company operates a physical location and does not, therefore, require an accessible kind of website, or that the website happens to not be a critical component of the company’s operations, have not prevailed in court.
Making your website more easily accessible will save you time, money, and effort while also improving your public image.
At first glance, the legislation and web accessibility may not make sense. Even though there hasn’t been a conclusive federal decision (yet), a growing number of state court decisions suggest that websites are subject to the same ADA standards as physical venues.
Make web accessibility a top focus in 2023 and 2024 to avoid pointless lawsuits and to welcome all visitors to your site.
You might be amazed at how simple web accessibility can be once you get started using the Web Accessibility Checklist.
Best Practices For ADA Website Accessibility, 3 Things To Be Aware Of & FAQ
