Digital accessibility lawsuits are on pace to reach another record in 2026. But the total number of cases is only part of the story.
Where claims are being filed is changing. A small group of plaintiff firms continues to drive most of the activity. E-commerce remains the primary target, and more companies are facing claims even after resolving a previous lawsuit.
During our recent webinar, Digital Accessibility Lawsuits in 2026, UsableNet Chief Innovation Officer Jason Taylor reviewed midyear 2026 litigation data with John Magliery, a commercial litigator who has defended dozens of companies against digital accessibility claims.
Here are five findings companies should understand, along with practical steps for reducing risk.
According to UsableNet’s 2026 Midyear Report, federal and state courts are on pace to see approximately 6,000 lawsuits involving websites and mobile apps in 2026. That would represent an increase of roughly 20 to 25 percent over 2025.
This count does not include every accessibility complaint a company might receive. Demand letters are sent directly to businesses and generally remain private unless they result in litigation. As a result, the number of companies confronting accessibility claims is likely considerably higher than the public lawsuit total suggests.
The rise also does not represent thousands of unrelated complaints moving independently through the courts. The activity is highly concentrated.
The report found that approximately 20 to 25 plaintiffs, working with a relatively small group of law firms, bring most digital accessibility lawsuits. The 10 most active plaintiff firms account for approximately 84 percent of filings.
That concentration helps explain why annual totals can rise quickly. When even one or two firms increase their filing volume or enter a new jurisdiction, the national numbers can change substantially.
For companies, the practical takeaway is straightforward: digital accessibility litigation follows recognizable patterns. Understanding those patterns can help businesses evaluate their exposure before a claim arrives.
New York, California, Florida, and Illinois continue to account for much of the litigation activity, although the legal environment differs in each state.
New York currently leads in case volume. California remains significant because claims may include state-law remedies in addition to federal ADA allegations. Florida continues to see substantial filing activity, while Illinois has emerged as one of the fastest-growing jurisdictions in 2026.
Companies should not assume they are insulated because they are headquartered elsewhere.
An online business may be subject to a lawsuit in a state where it sells or ships products, depending on the specific facts and the court’s approach to personal jurisdiction. For national e-commerce companies, that can create exposure well beyond the location of their headquarters or physical stores.
The more useful question is not, “Are we based in a high-risk state?”
It is, “Where do we conduct business, and how accessible are the digital experiences available to customers in those markets?”
According to the midyear report, approximately 80 percent of digital accessibility lawsuits involve e-commerce companies, with food service also accounting for a meaningful share of claims.
Online retail remains attractive to plaintiff firms for several reasons.
First, the customer journey is easy to evaluate. A tester can determine whether a screen reader user can search for products, select options, add an item to a cart, enter payment information, and complete checkout.
Second, the alleged harm is easy to communicate. A customer wanted to purchase a product but encountered a barrier that prevented them from doing so.
Third, retail websites change constantly. New products, promotions, templates, third-party integrations, and checkout updates can introduce accessibility issues even after earlier problems have been corrected.
This makes accessibility an operational challenge, not simply a compliance exercise. A website can become less accessible as teams publish content and release new functionality unless accessibility is built into the development and quality assurance process.
The report also found that approximately one-quarter of digital accessibility lawsuits are filed against companies that have previously faced a similar claim.
That matters because most settlements resolve the dispute with one plaintiff. They do not prevent another individual or law firm from bringing a separate claim.
A previous lawsuit may also make a company more visible. Court filings are public, allowing other firms to identify businesses that have already been targeted.
The durable response is not simply to settle the immediate matter. It is to identify the barriers behind the complaint, remediate them, and establish a process that prevents the same problems from returning.
Prior accessibility work still matters. Meaningful remediation may give defense counsel a stronger basis for challenging allegations, narrowing a claim, or demonstrating that identified barriers have already been addressed.
But companies should be cautious about relying on a completed audit or an old conformance report. The relevant question is whether the current website works for people with disabilities today.
According to the report, approximately 20 percent of the companies sued had an accessibility widget or overlay installed.
These tools may add a visible accessibility button or allow users to adjust certain display settings. However, they generally do not correct all barriers in the website’s underlying code.
That distinction is particularly important because most digital accessibility lawsuits involve plaintiffs who are blind or use screen readers. If form fields remain unlabeled, buttons cannot be reached by keyboard, product options are not announced, or checkout errors are unclear, a widget may not resolve the experience that led to the claim.
Installing a widget does not establish that a website is accessible, nor does it necessarily resolve the underlying barriers alleged in a claim.
A tool can support an accessibility program, but it should not be confused with remediation. Sustainable progress requires teams to correct issues in the native website and continue testing as the experience changes.
A demand letter or complaint can create immediate pressure across legal, digital, and executive teams. The response is easier to manage when the company separates the work into two parallel tracks.
Engage counsel with experience defending website and mobile accessibility cases.
An experienced attorney can evaluate the allegations, the plaintiff firm involved, jurisdictional questions, the strength of the claim, and the options for settlement, mediation, or defense.
Not every claim is identical, and not every alleged issue creates the same level of risk. The company should avoid making assumptions before counsel has reviewed the facts.
The legal response should not replace the accessibility response.
Test the affected experience, confirm whether the alleged barriers exist, and begin correcting validated issues. Prioritize problems that prevent users from completing essential tasks, such as creating an account, purchasing a product, locating information, or contacting the company.
Companies should also look beyond the individual pages named in the complaint. A defect tied to a shared component, template, or third-party integration may appear across many parts of the site.
The goal is not only to respond to the current claim. It is to reduce the likelihood that the same barrier leads to another one.
Organizations do not need to wait for a demand letter to understand their exposure.
Begin with the tasks that matter most to customers and the business. For an e-commerce company, that may include:
Automated testing can identify many common technical issues, but it cannot determine whether the entire experience is usable.
Include manual testing and testing by people who use assistive technology to understand whether customers can complete the journey successfully.
An audit can show where the website stands at a particular moment. It does not keep the site accessible as new content and code are released.
Define how accessibility issues will be prioritized, assigned, fixed, verified, and monitored over time. Clarify which work belongs to internal teams, third-party vendors, and accessibility partners.
Accessibility improves when it becomes part of normal website operations rather than a separate initiative that begins only after a legal complaint.
Attendees submitted more questions than we could address during the live session. Here are answers to several of the most common.
A demand letter is sent directly to a company before a lawsuit is filed. It generally describes alleged barriers and requests action, payment, or both.
Because a demand letter is not filed with a court, it typically remains private. Lawsuits become part of the public court record, although settlement amounts are often confidential and may not appear in the docket.
During the webinar, the presenters estimated that businesses receive roughly two to three times as many demand letters as filed lawsuits. Because demand letters are not filed with a court, no comprehensive public database tracks them.
An accessibility statement should communicate the company’s commitment to providing an accessible experience and give customers a clear way to report barriers or request assistance.
Avoid making overly broad promises that the organization cannot consistently support. Accessibility changes as websites, content, and technology evolve.
The statement should reflect a real process behind it. Someone should monitor the listed contact method, respond to reported barriers, and route issues to the team responsible for resolving them.
Yes.
Audits, remediation records, testing results, accessibility policies, and evidence of ongoing improvement can help counsel understand the company’s position and evaluate the allegations.
However, documentation alone is not enough. The strongest evidence is an experience that has been tested, remediated, and maintained.
E-commerce is likely to remain the largest category because online purchasing creates a clear customer transaction and an easily tested journey.
Online services may also receive greater attention as more essential activities move to digital platforms, including financial services, healthcare, travel, education, and AI-enabled products.
The legal analysis may vary by industry and jurisdiction, but the broader expectation is becoming more consistent: people with disabilities should be able to use digital services independently.
This article covers the main findings, but the live conversation went deeper into how plaintiff firms select targets, why certain states are seeing more activity, what companies should do when a claim arrives, and which accessibility efforts can meaningfully reduce risk.
Watch the on-demand webinar, Digital Accessibility Lawsuits in 2026, with Jason Taylor and John Magliery.
Register to watch the webinar on demand
Featured Speaker
John Magliery
John Magliery is a commercial litigator with more than 20 years of experience in state and federal courts and before regulatory agencies nationwide. He has defended dozens of clients in claims involving the accessibility of websites and mobile apps and regularly represents companies in ADA, civil rights, and discrimination matters.
The 2026 data does not suggest that digital accessibility litigation is slowing down.
A small group of firms continues to drive a large share of cases. E-commerce remains the leading target. Companies can face claims in states where they conduct business, and resolving one lawsuit does not prevent another.
The most effective response is not a statement, widget, or one-time audit.
Start with the customer journeys that matter most, identify the barriers preventing people from completing them, and establish a process for fixing and retesting those experiences as the site changes.
Need help determining where to start? UsableNet helps enterprise teams identify, remediate, and monitor accessibility issues across complex digital experiences. Speak with a UsableNet accessibility expert