A conversation with Minh Vu, Partner at Seyfarth Shaw,
as part of the Notes from the Field series.
Most companies that receive an ADA website demand letter focus on resolving it. That's the right instinct. But in my conversations with ADA Title III defense attorneys, the same pattern keeps coming up: resolving the first claim doesn't automatically reduce the risk of a second one.
The reason isn't indifference. It's the conditions that made a company a target the first time that often remain in place after the case closes, and in some cases, get worse. That's what I wanted to dig into with Minh Vu, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw who handles ADA Title III litigation and sees what happens after the resolution.
Repeat Defendants Are a Pattern, Not an Outlier
Something I've been tracking closely: many of the ADA accessibility lawsuits in 2025 were against companies that had already received a prior claim. Not companies encountering the ADA for the first time.
The way I've come to think about it: if you've received one demand letter, another is probably on the way. And if you've seen multiple, it becomes a snowball effect. Minh confirmed this directly — it's not an outlier, it's predictable.
Watch Minh break down the two patterns that make companies most likely targets — and what they signal.
What Minh Recommends After a First Claim
When a company has already been sued once, Minh's guidance is specific. The first priority is fixing the barriers that automated scanning tools can detect — because those are the same tools plaintiff firms use to identify targets.
After that, the focus should shift to the major user journeys: the paths real users take through the site to complete meaningful tasks. As Minh put it, “If the experience is good on all the major tasks on your website, then people are not going to be as likely to sue.”
Watch Minh walk through what to do the moment a demand letter arrives — and how the right response can change everything.
Why One Time Fixes Don't Hold
This is where the repeat exposure pattern gets its teeth. Minh made a distinction I keep coming back to: digital accessibility isn't like a physical barrier fix. Build a ramp; the ramp stays. Websites don't work that way.
As she put it, “The website you had yesterday is probably not the website you have tomorrow.” Every new video, promotional pop-up, or content update is an opportunity to introduce a new barrier. Developers working on back-end code need to understand how to build accessibility from the start. For example, content managers need to know what accessible content actually requires.
Without that foundation, Minh's observation holds: “You could do all the fixing in the world, and then three weeks later, there’s going to be stuff that pops up that’s changed, that’s going to create new barriers.”
Watch Minh explain what actually reduces repeat lawsuits — and why accessibility can’t be treated as a one-time fix.
The Real Gap: Fixing vs. Managing
I've seen a consistent pattern with companies that treat accessibility as a one-and-done project: they end up taking one step forward, then two steps back, over and over. Minh reframed the goal entirely.
The answer isn't a better remediation sprint. It's a process. One where the people touching the site – designers, developers, and content managers - are trained and equipped to maintain accessibility as the site evolves. As she said, “It’s better to create a process to manage this the right way.”
Watch Minh explain why “quick fixes” fall short — and what real accessibility testing should actually include.
Minh's perspective isn't that repeat lawsuits are inevitable. It's that they follow a predictable pattern — one that reactive responses and one-time fixes don't break. The companies that stop cycling through claims are the ones that change how they manage their sites, not just how they settle their cases.
Explore more insights in my Notes from the Field series.
If you’re evaluating how to move from reactive fixes to a more sustainable approach, we’re happy to share what that looks like in practice
This post is based on a conversation with Minh Vu, Partner at Seyfarth Shaw, as part of the Notes from the Field series. Content reflects her professional perspective. It does not constitute legal advice.
