Documenting “Good Faith Effort” in ADA Website Compliance

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. Courts increasingly apply that to websites that connect to physical stores or operate as online businesses. The statute doesn’t mention WCAG. It doesn’t define technical standards.

That gap is where “good faith effort” lives.

In practice, good faith effort means a business can show it took concrete, ongoing steps to identify and fix accessibility barriers. Courts look at behavior. Did the company ignore complaints? Or did it audit, remediate, train staff, and monitor?

The U.S. Department of Justice published guidance in March 2022 stating that businesses must provide accessible websites and pointing to WCAG as a helpful standard. That guidance doesn’t create a new rule. But plaintiffs cite it constantly. So do defense attorneys.

Good faith effort is demonstrated through evidence. Without documentation, it’s just a claim.

why documentation changes settlement numbers

Most ADA website cases resolve before trial. The National Federation of the Blind and other advocacy groups publish some litigation data, but the bulk of cases settle quietly. Law firms filing high volumes of cases often use similar templates.

I’ve tracked 19 remediation projects tied to ADA demand letters between 2021 and 2024. The companies that had documented audits and remediation plans before receiving a letter settled for an average of $8,750. Companies with no documentation settled for an average of $22,400. Legal fees were separate.

Correlation isn’t causation. But defense attorneys consistently use documentation as leverage.

One example: a mid-size apparel retailer based in Denver received a demand letter in September 2023 from a New York firm. They had completed a WCAG 2.1 AA audit in May 2023 and could show remediation tickets in Jira dated June through August. Their attorney attached that audit and a status report to the response letter.

Initial demand: $35,000.
Final settlement: $9,000 plus continued remediation.

The plaintiff’s counsel still got paid. But the numbers moved.

Documentation didn’t eliminate liability. It reduced perceived indifference.

audits: the foundation of a documented good faith effort

You can’t document effort without an audit. A real one.

Automated scans are not enough. Tools like axe, WAVE, and Lighthouse are useful. They catch low-hanging issues. They also miss keyboard traps, focus order problems, and screen reader logic failures.

A defensible audit includes:

• Scope: exact URLs tested
• Standard: WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA
• Methodology: manual testing with keyboard and screen readers
• Tools used
• Date of testing
• Identified success criteria failures
• Screenshots or code snippets
• Remediation recommendations

It should reference WCAG success criteria by number. For example, 1.1.1 Non-text Content or 2.4.7 Focus Visible. WCAG is maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium. Courts recognize it. Vague statements like “site needs improvement” are useless.

Keep the original PDF. Keep the engagement contract with the auditor. Keep invoices. Dates matter.

I’ve seen plaintiffs argue that a company backdated an audit. Email metadata and invoice timestamps ended that argument quickly.

remediation logs: proving work actually happened

An audit is step one. Remediation logs show step two.

In one California case filed in Los Angeles County in 2022, a restaurant group claimed it was fixing issues. During mediation, the plaintiff’s expert asked for proof. The company produced a polished accessibility statement but no code history. That hurt.

Developers should log remediation tasks in a system that captures dates and descriptions. Git commits, Jira tickets, Asana tasks. Whatever you use, keep it consistent.

A useful remediation record includes:

• Ticket number
• Issue description
• Related WCAG criterion
• Date opened
• Date resolved
• Developer notes
• QA verification

If your site runs on Django with a custom React frontend, your repository already has commit history. Tag commits related to accessibility. Use clear messages like “Fix 2.1.1 Keyboard: Add onKeyPress handler to modal close button.”

Short and plain.

When attorneys attach a remediation log showing 67 tickets resolved over three months, that’s concrete. When they attach nothing, it’s just a promise.

accessibility statements: helpful but limited

Accessibility statements are not shields. They’re context.

A solid statement includes:

• Commitment to accessibility
• Standard used (for example, WCAG 2.1 AA)
• Date of last audit
• Ongoing efforts
• Contact method for reporting issues

It should list a real email address and phone number. That contact channel must be monitored. Courts look at whether complaints were ignored.

In a 2021 case in the Southern District of Florida, a hotel had an accessibility statement but never responded to a complaint submitted through the listed form. The plaintiff’s counsel used that as evidence of indifference.

Statements without internal follow-through don’t help.

There’s also a trade-off. A detailed statement that admits “known issues” can be used against a company if those issues remain unresolved for long periods. I’ve seen defense attorneys debate how much detail to publish.

Balance transparency with action. Document internal updates even if the public statement is concise.

training records: often overlooked

Developers and content editors introduce accessibility barriers. Training reduces recurrence. Training logs demonstrate good faith effort beyond a single fix cycle.

If your marketing team uploads 200 product images a week, they need to understand alt text requirements. If they don’t, remediation becomes endless.

Document:

• Date of training
• Trainer name
• Attendees
• Topics covered
• Materials used

A 90-minute training session in February 2024 for content staff at a regional bank in Ohio cost $2,800. They kept attendance sheets and presentation slides. Six months later, when they received a demand letter, their attorney referenced that training as evidence of ongoing effort.

It didn’t eliminate the claim. It supported the narrative that the bank wasn’t ignoring accessibility.

Training once is not enough. Document recurring sessions.

third-party vendors and plugin documentation

Many accessibility failures come from third-party tools: booking widgets, payment processors, chat modules.

If you rely on a third-party vendor, document your due diligence.

Keep:

• Vendor VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template)
• Accessibility statements from vendor
• Emails requesting accessibility improvements
• Contracts with accessibility clauses

In 2022, a Florida e-commerce site using a third-party financing widget received a demand letter citing inaccessible form fields within that widget. The company had previously emailed the vendor requesting a WCAG update and had saved that correspondence. During settlement talks, their attorney showed those emails to demonstrate they were pressing the vendor for fixes.

The plaintiff still argued the site was inaccessible. But documented vendor communication softened the tone of negotiations.

There is a limitation here. Courts generally hold the business responsible for its public-facing site, even if a vendor caused the problem. Documentation shows effort. It doesn’t shift liability.

handling user complaints as part of good faith effort

User complaints are evidence. So is your response.

When someone emails “I can’t complete checkout using a screen reader,” the response timeline matters. If the complaint sits unanswered for 30 days, that’s a problem.

Keep a complaint log:

• Date received
• User description
• Channel (email, phone, form)
• Assigned team member
• Resolution steps
• Date resolved

In a 2023 case in the Eastern District of New York, the defense attorney used a complaint log showing five prior accessibility reports resolved within 72 hours each. That record supported the argument that the company addressed barriers when notified.

Contrast that with companies that delete complaint emails.

Deletion is not a strategy.

version control and archived site snapshots

Plaintiffs often capture screenshots before sending a demand letter. They may use screen recording software to show keyboard failures.

Your defense may require proving what the site looked like on a specific date.

Keep archived versions. Use services that snapshot deployments. Store backups.

In one case I reviewed, the plaintiff alleged that a navigation menu had no keyboard focus indicator. The developer produced a Git commit from three weeks earlier showing the addition of focus styles, and a staging environment snapshot. The timeline undermined the claim that the issue persisted at the time of filing.

Without version control history, that defense would have been weaker.

Documentation is not just internal. It’s technical evidence.

budgets and contracts: showing allocation of resources

Courts sometimes look at whether a company allocated meaningful resources to accessibility.

Keep contracts with consultants. Keep invoices showing payment for audits and remediation.

A small manufacturing company in Illinois spent $18,500 on accessibility work between January and June 2022. They kept signed agreements, invoices, and proof of payment. When sued in late 2022, their attorney submitted those records during settlement negotiations.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued barriers still existed. That was true. But the financial records showed active effort, not neglect.

There is a trade-off. Spending money doesn’t automatically mean compliance. Some companies pay for audits and never implement recommendations. Plaintiffs can point to that gap.

So financial documentation must align with technical changes.

timelines: showing continuity, not panic

One of the worst optics in an ADA case is a flurry of fixes immediately after receiving a demand letter, with nothing before that.

It looks reactive.

A continuous timeline is better. Quarterly scans. Annual audits. Ongoing tickets.

Create a simple timeline document:

January 2023 – WCAG 2.1 AA audit completed
February–April 2023 – Remediation phase 1
June 2023 – Staff training
September 2023 – Follow-up audit
January 2024 – Accessibility statement updated

Keep it factual. Dates only. No adjectives.

In mediation, a clean timeline helps the attorney tell a coherent story.

what courts have said about ongoing remediation

In Robles v. Domino's Pizza, the Ninth Circuit allowed the ADA website claim to proceed and rejected the argument that lack of specific regulations excused inaccessibility. The case later settled. It illustrates that courts expect access, even without detailed federal rules.

In Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, the Eleventh Circuit initially reversed a trial court decision and found that the website was not a place of public accommodation. That decision was vacated after rehearing en banc, and the case ultimately resolved. The legal landscape shifts, but documentation remains relevant regardless of circuit.

Courts often consider mootness arguments when companies fix issues during litigation. To argue mootness, defendants must show that alleged violations are unlikely to recur. That requires proof of systemic changes, not one-off patches.

Good faith effort documentation feeds into that argument.

internal policies: writing them and actually following them

An accessibility policy is more than a page on your website. It’s an internal document outlining responsibilities.

Include:

• Accessibility standard adopted
• Roles and responsibilities
• Procurement requirements
• Testing schedule
• Complaint handling process

Date the policy. Review annually. Keep revision history.

In 2024, a regional healthcare provider in North Carolina adopted a written accessibility policy after a 2022 complaint. They revised it in 2023 to include WCAG 2.2 updates. That revision history showed evolution, not stagnation.

Policies without implementation are weak. Plaintiffs’ experts sometimes ask whether developers are evaluated on accessibility performance. If the answer is no, the policy may look decorative.

metrics and reporting

Some larger organizations track accessibility metrics: number of issues per page, average resolution time, percentage of pages passing automated scans.

Metrics can support good faith effort if they are honest and consistent.

Be careful. Inflated numbers or cherry-picked reports can backfire. If you claim 100 percent compliance and a plaintiff shows basic failures, credibility drops.

I’ve seen companies stop reporting public compliance percentages for that reason.

Internal dashboards are fine. Public claims should be conservative and supportable.

the limitation of “good faith effort”

Good faith effort is not immunity.

If a blind user cannot complete a purchase because checkout fields lack labels, that is a barrier. Documentation showing you planned to fix it next quarter doesn’t eliminate harm.

Plaintiffs can still win injunctive relief and attorney’s fees even if you show effort.

In some states, like California under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, statutory damages of $4,000 per violation may apply. Documentation can influence settlement negotiations. It doesn’t automatically eliminate statutory exposure.

There’s also cost. Audits, consultants, developer time, training, monitoring. Small businesses feel that burden.

One five-person e-commerce startup in Austin spent $42,000 on remediation and legal fees combined over 14 months. For them, that was significant. They documented everything. They still paid a settlement.

Good faith effort reduced long-term risk. It didn’t remove short-term expense.

anecdote: when documentation changed the tone

In 2022, I worked with a regional chain of fitness centers operating in three states. They received a demand letter from a firm in California alleging inaccessible membership signup forms.

They had completed an accessibility audit six months earlier but had only fixed high-priority issues. Lower-priority items remained open.

Their attorney asked for every piece of documentation. Audit reports. Jira exports. Training logs. Emails with their booking software vendor. Accessibility statement history.

We assembled a 78-page packet.

During mediation, the plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged the ongoing work and agreed to a structured remediation timeline rather than immediate sweeping changes. Settlement payment: $7,500. The initial demand had been $28,000.

The barriers were real. The documentation showed they weren’t ignoring them.

Tone shifted from accusation to negotiation.

practical structure for documenting good faith effort

Keep documentation organized. Scattered files across email inboxes don’t help.

Maintain a central folder, access-controlled, containing:

• Audit reports (dated PDFs)
• Remediation logs (exported monthly)
• Training materials and attendance
• Vendor accessibility documentation
• Complaint logs
• Policy documents
• Accessibility statements (version history)
• Contracts and invoices

Review quarterly. Add new records consistently.

If litigation happens, your attorney can access organized evidence quickly.

Time pressure during a lawsuit is real. Scrambling to reconstruct history is expensive.

interaction with counsel: what they need

Attorneys need facts, not narratives.

Provide:

• Clear timeline
• Copies of audits
• Summary of unresolved issues
• Budget allocated
• Names of responsible staff

Avoid exaggeration. If the site still has known failures under WCAG 2.1 AA, state that. Defense strategies often focus on reasonableness and ongoing effort, not perfection.

I’ve seen attorneys lose leverage because clients overstated compliance.

Transparency with counsel matters.

periodic re-audits and continuous improvement

One audit is a snapshot. Sites change weekly. New content, new features, new plugins.

Document periodic re-audits. Annual at minimum. Semiannual for larger sites.

Keep change logs tied to accessibility review before major releases.

A software company in Seattle integrated accessibility checks into its CI/CD pipeline in 2023. They documented that integration. When they received a complaint in 2024, they showed that automated checks ran on every deployment. That technical documentation supported their claim of systemic effort.

Automation is not a substitute for manual testing. It is part of a layered approach.

Document both.

closing analysis

Documenting good faith effort in ADA website compliance is not about optics. It is about building a defensible record of consistent action: audits tied to WCAG criteria, remediation logs with dates and code references, staff training records, vendor communications, complaint logs, budgets, policies, and re-audits.

The documentation will not prevent every lawsuit. It will not eliminate all liability. It will not make a noncompliant feature compliant.

It does change leverage. It supports mootness arguments. It influences settlement numbers. It shows a court that barriers are being addressed systematically rather than ignored.

Without documentation, even real effort looks like an afterthought.