AI is rapidly becoming a transformative force for blind users navigating the web, and the latest announcements from JAWS underscore just how significant that shift may be. In this article, I break down these updates and explain how they benefit assistive technology users and why they don't reduce legal risk.
Traditional screen readers rely solely on underlying website code, meaning they cannot perceive or interpret the visual layout that sighted users take for granted. AI changes that dynamic entirely. By analyzing both the code and the visual appearance of a webpage, AI can act much like a sighted assistant sitting beside a blind user: describing visual elements, suggesting actions, identifying likely interactive targets, and offering alternative strategies for completing tasks online.
Blind users represent the vast majority of plaintiffs in ADA website accessibility litigation, roughly 99% of all claims. For these users, AI introduces meaningful new capabilities: the ability to “see” visual layouts through synthesized description, the ability to navigate complex or poorly coded interfaces, and in some cases the ability to bypass barriers that would otherwise halt progress. The technology has genuine, practical value. It has the potential to improve independence, reduce frustration, and expand access to digital services in ways that were simply not possible before.
AI improvements for end users in browsers or screen readers does not reduce the legal exposure faced by website owners under the ADA. The structure of ADA website litigation is built around the accessibility of the website itself, not the tools a user may employ to compensate for barriers. And the litigation environment remains extraordinarily concentrated: more than 80% of digital accessibility lawsuits are brought by a small group of plaintiff firms and a small set of repeat plaintiffs. These lawsuits continue not because technology is inadequate, but because the ADA allows plaintiffs to challenge barriers that remain present in the underlying website regardless of the user’s chosen assistive tools.
In other words, ADA legal standards evaluate the website, not the availability of technology that might mitigate its flaws. A plaintiff using the most basic, least AI-supported setup has the same right to bring a claim as a plaintiff using the most advanced AI-enabled screen reader. The law does not assume or require that a user adopt new technology, nor does it excuse inaccessible design simply because some users can overcome it with AI assistance. As long as barriers exist in the site’s structure, labeling, navigation, or interaction patterns, the legal risk remains fully intact.
Even if AI enables many blind users to navigate websites more effectively, the fundamental incentives behind ADA litigation are unchanged. The plaintiff bar has every reason to continue pursuing claims, and courts continue to apply standards that focus exclusively on the accessibility of the website itself, not on AI, not on workarounds, and not on how individual users may experience the site with advanced tools.
AI is indeed a game changer for blind users. But it does nothing to change the legal rules that govern accessibility, nor does it diminish the risk of ADA lawsuits. The only reliable strategy for reducing legal exposure remains the same as it has for the past decade: ensure that your website meets established accessibility guidelines, is tested by real assistive technology users, and removes the structural barriers that form the basis of ADA claims.