How to get an ADA website lawsuit dismissed
How to get an ADA website lawsuit dismissed
You get the letter or the court summons. Your website is being sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff, often a blind or visually impaired person you've never heard of, claims they couldn't buy your product or navigate your site using screen reader software.
You have 21 to 30 days to respond in most federal courts. Ignoring it means a default judgment.
Getting these cases dismissed is possible, but not for the reasons most website owners think. The idea that making your site "compliant" automatically kills the lawsuit is wrong. Courts don't work that way. Here's what actually gets cases thrown out.
The standing problem: who can actually sue
The most common way to get an ADA website lawsuit dismissed is to show the plaintiff lacks standing to sue in the first place. Standing isn't about whether your website works. It's about whether this specific person was actually harmed by it in a way the court can fix.
In Camacho v. Vanderbilt University, decided December 2019 in the Southern District of New York, the court laid out what plaintiffs need to prove. Jason Camacho, a blind man from Brooklyn, claimed Vanderbilt's website was inaccessible. Vanderbilt tried to dismiss, arguing Camacho had no real connection to a Tennessee school. The court denied the motion, but the opinion is useful because it shows what plaintiffs must allege.
The key is "intent to return." A plaintiff can't just claim they visited once and moved on. They have to show they'd actually use the site again if it were accessible. This is harder to prove than it sounds.
What works for dismissal: If the plaintiff lives in a different state than your business and has no connection to your area, you can challenge standing. If they're a serial plaintiff who files dozens of identical lawsuits, you can use that. One federal judge in New York dismissed an Apple lawsuit in March 2019 with a memorable line: "Those who live by the photocopier shall die by the photocopier." The plaintiff had filed too many copycat complaints without specific details about her own injury.
The Apple case is worth reading. The plaintiff claimed she couldn't access Apple's site but didn't allege what she actually tried to do there. Judge Loretta Preska wrote that Apple "is not selling an obscure product from a hidden bunker." If the plaintiff wanted a product or needed a repair, she should have said so. She didn't. Case dismissed.
The limitation: Standing arguments work better in some federal circuits than others. The Second Circuit in New York is tougher on plaintiffs than the Ninth Circuit in California. Your lawyer needs to know the local case law.
The physical place requirement: does your website count
This defense is simpler but less reliable. Some courts say the ADA only covers physical places, not websites. The statute lists 12 categories of public accommodations, all of them physical locations like hotels, restaurants, and stores.
In February 2024, Judge Virginia Kendall in the Northern District of Illinois ruled on this exact question in Walsh v. Dania Incorporated. Caitlin Walsh, who is blind, tried to buy a coffee table from Dania's website. She couldn't. Dania moved to dismiss, arguing websites aren't public accommodations under the ADA.
The court partially denied the motion. But the opinion is useful because it lays out the circuit split. The Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have all said a place of public accommodation must be a physical space. The First Circuit and the Seventh Circuit (where this case was decided) have suggested websites can be covered, especially when they're connected to a physical store.
What this means for your case: If you're in a circuit that hasn't ruled clearly, or if you're in a circuit that limits ADA coverage to physical spaces, you have an argument. The Dania case is still alive, but the court acknowledged the disagreement among federal appeals courts. That disagreement creates opportunities.
The judge in Dania pointed out something important. During COVID-19, businesses like furniture stores operated entirely online. If the ADA only covered physical stores, those businesses could exclude disabled customers entirely during lockdowns. Courts are aware of this tension.
Mootness: fixing the problem after the lawsuit
If you fix your website after being sued, can the case continue? It depends on whether you actually fixed everything and whether the plaintiff still wants something from you.
In Hecht v. Magnanni Inc., decided March 2022, a shoe company tried this. Irene Hecht, who is blind, sued Magnanni claiming their website wasn't accessible. During the lawsuit, Magnanni said they fixed it. They filed affidavits saying the site was now compliant and moved to dismiss the case as moot.
The court denied the motion. Here's why: Hecht submitted her own expert report from Robert Moody, an information systems auditor, who found continuing accessibility issues. The court had competing factual claims about whether the site actually worked. That's not a dismissal. That's a trial.
The lesson: You can't just claim you fixed it. You need proof, and the plaintiff gets to challenge that proof. If you fix everything completely and document it thoroughly, and the plaintiff can't show remaining problems, mootness can work. But it's risky because you're essentially admitting the site had problems while arguing you solved them.
This is an older strategy but still worth knowing. In March 2017, a federal judge in California dismissed an ADA lawsuit against Domino's Pizza. The plaintiff was blind. He claimed he couldn't order pizza using Domino's website and mobile app. Domino's moved to dismiss, arguing the Department of Justice had never issued actual regulations telling businesses what websites need to do to comply with the ADA.
Judge S. James Otero agreed. He wrote that requiring businesses to guess at accessibility standards violated their due process rights. The DOJ had promised regulations for years but never delivered. The court couldn't impose standards the government itself hadn't set.
Why this is harder now: The Domino's case was later reversed on appeal. The Ninth Circuit said the ADA applies even without specific DOJ regulations. But the due process argument still appears in some cases, especially when plaintiffs try to enforce specific technical standards like WCAG 2.0 that aren't actually written into law.
Technical compliance as evidence, not a magic shield
Showing your website meets WCAG 2.1 AA standards is useful. It's evidence you didn't intentionally discriminate. But it rarely gets cases dismissed on its own.
Courts look at whether the plaintiff actually encountered barriers. If your site has an accessibility statement and passes automated tests, but a blind user still can't complete a purchase, you have a factual dispute. Those go to trial or settlement, not dismissal.
The smarter approach: Document everything. Keep records of accessibility audits, user testing with disabled individuals, and fixes you've made. If you're sued, that documentation helps show good faith. It also limits damages because plaintiffs can't claim you were deliberately ignoring accessibility.
The fraud angle: when plaintiffs lie
Some plaintiffs and law firms file hundreds of identical lawsuits. They use the same language in every complaint, often without checking whether the person actually visited the website.
If you can show the plaintiff never actually tried to use your site, or if they claim problems that don't exist, you can move to dismiss for fraud on the court. This is hard to prove and requires investigation. But it happens. The Karlin Law firm, which has defended these cases for over 40 years, notes that some claims have "no legal basis" or involve "fraud".
The Apple case mentioned earlier is an example. The plaintiff couldn't specify what she actually tried to do on the site. The court saw that as a failure to plead a concrete injury.
Settlement traps to avoid
If you can't get dismissal, you'll likely settle. Most cases settle. But settlements have three parts, not just the payment amount.
First, there's the money. Second, there's what you agree to do to your website. Third, there's ongoing oversight. Bad settlement agreements let the plaintiff's law firm monitor your site forever, threatening to haul you back to court if they find new problems.
What to negotiate: Limit website changes to specific, verifiable fixes. Avoid agreeing to "comply with WCAG" generally. That's vague and expensive. Agree to fix the specific problems this plaintiff encountered. Also push for "prenotice and cure" provisions, meaning if there's a future problem, you get a chance to fix it before being sued again.
The fee problem nobody explains
ADA cases have one-way fee shifting. If the plaintiff wins, you pay their attorneys fees. If you win, you pay your own fees. The plaintiff pays nothing.
This changes the math. Even weak cases have settlement value because losing means paying the other side's legal bills. Some plaintiffs lawyers file questionable cases knowing this. It's not illegal, but it's how the system works.
What this means: Don't drag cases out hoping they'll disappear. Plaintiffs lawyers build fees as the case continues. Settling early can cost less than fighting and losing, even if you're right. The risk is that if you fight and lose at trial, you might pay fees five, ten, or twenty times what early settlement would have cost.
Practical steps before you're sued
If you haven't been sued yet, here's what reduces the odds and helps if you are.
Test your site with real screen reader users. Automated tools miss about 70 percent of actual accessibility problems. Users who are blind or low vision will find things software won't.
Document everything. Keep records of tests, fixes, and user feedback. If you're sued, you want to show ongoing effort, not panic remediation.
Train your staff. Developers need to know how to code accessibly. Content people need to know how to write alt text and structure headings. One-off fixes don't last if your team doesn't understand why they matter.
Don't rely entirely on accessibility overlays or widgets. Tools like accessiBe and UserWay can help, but they're not complete solutions. Courts haven't decided whether they count as compliance. Some lawyers say they make you more of a target because plaintiffs know how to test whether they actually work.
The bottom line
Getting an ADA website lawsuit dismissed means attacking the plaintiff's standing, challenging whether the ADA applies to your site at all, or showing they can't prove actual harm. Technical compliance helps but doesn't end cases by itself.
The system is designed to settle, not to try cases. The fee structure guarantees that. Your goal is either to get out on a legal technicality or to settle on terms that don't require rebuilding your site every time standards change.
Read the cases mentioned here. Camacho, Dania, the Apple dismissal, Hecht, and the Domino's decision. They're all public records. They show what arguments worked and which ones didn't. Then talk to a lawyer who actually defends these cases, not someone who just writes demand letters. The difference matters.