Website Accessibility Under ADA Title III: What the Records Show and How to Comply

Courts treat commercial and government websites as covered services, WCAG is the de facto standard, and one settlement won't immunize you — here's how to comply and stay compliant.

If your business has a website, the question of whether disability-accessibility law reaches it is largely settled in the records below. The harder questions are what standard applies and how you keep meeting it. This article walks through what real court decisions and federal rules show, the standard they point to, a checklist you can act on, and how to maintain compliance over time.

This is not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel about your specific situation.

What the record shows

Commercial websites are treated as covered. In Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC (E.D.N.Y. 2017), a blind plaintiff sued under ADA Title III over a retail e-commerce site he couldn't use with a screen reader. The court declined to dismiss, treating the website as a covered "place of public accommodation" service — and it rejected the defense that the absence of formal DOJ web regulations meant businesses lacked fair notice. Reed v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2018) reached the same result: a commercial website with a nexus to the company's goods and services falls within Title III, and inaccessibility can state a discrimination claim. Castillo v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (N.D. Ohio 2018) let yet another retail-website suit proceed. The pattern is consistent across districts: retail sites get litigated as public-accommodation services, with or without a federal technical standard on the books.

One settlement does not buy you peace. In Dennis Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC (11th Cir. 2018), the appellate court held that a website-accessibility claim was not mooted by a prior remediation settlement Hooters had reached with a different plaintiff. The new plaintiff could pursue his own claim. The practical lesson: remediation agreements bind the parties to them, not the world. Serial and repeat exposure is real, and "we already settled one of these" is not a defense.

State civil-rights laws actively impose WCAG. California's Unruh Act frequently travels alongside ADA Title III, and it has teeth. In Thurston v. Midvale Corporation (Cal. Ct. App. 2019), the court affirmed judgment for a blind plaintiff against a restaurant whose site wasn't screen-reader accessible — and expressly held WCAG 2.0 was an appropriate standard and remedy. Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) extended that reasoning to financial services, holding the plaintiff stated an Unruh Act claim over an inaccessible credit-union website and again endorsing WCAG conformance as the measure.

These suits are still landing — and default is expensive. Myers v. Baileys' In Midtown, Inc. (d/b/a Rooster) (E.D. Mo. 2025) granted default judgment in a website-accessibility ADA suit against a restaurant. A business that ignores the complaint can face final judgment plus the plaintiff's attorney's-fee and cost recovery. Doing nothing is the worst posture.

The federal government has now fixed a number. For public entities, the DOJ's 2024 Title II final rule adopted WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the binding technical standard for state and local government websites and mobile apps — the first federal regulation pinning a specific conformance target. Parallel obligations hit recipients of federal funds: HHS's 2024 Section 504 final rule imposed a WCAG-based mandate on programs receiving HHS financial assistance. In 2026, DOJ (IFR, docket 2026-07663) and HHS (IFR, docket 2026-09266) extended the compliance deadlines — but the substantive WCAG 2.1 AA obligation stands. Only the dates moved; the target did not.

The standard this implies

Even though ADA Title III still lacks its own DOJ web regulation, every signal points to one answer: WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the working standard. Courts use WCAG as the remedial benchmark (Thurston, Martinez), DOJ codified WCAG 2.1 AA for public entities, and HHS built its Section 504 rule on the same family. Build and test to WCAG 2.1 AA and you are aligned with where both the courts and the regulators have landed.

A concrete checklist

• Provide text alternatives for every meaningful image, icon, and control (`alt` text; ARIA labels where needed).
• Make everything keyboard-operable — no mouse-only menus, modals, or carousels. Verify a visible focus indicator.
• Ensure screen-reader compatibility: test with NVDA, JAWS, or VoiceOver, not just an automated scanner.
• Meet color-contrast minimums (4.5:1 for normal text) and never convey information by color alone.
• Label all form fields and tie error messages programmatically to the inputs they describe.
• Add captions/transcripts for video and audio.
• Use semantic structure — real headings, landmarks, lists — and a logical reading/tab order.
• Don't trap focus; make custom widgets announce their state.
• Cover your mobile app too — DOJ's rule and the case law reach apps, not just sites.
• Publish an accessibility statement with a contact path for users who hit barriers.
• Run a manual audit, not just automated tools. Automated scanners catch perhaps a third of issues; the lawsuits above turned on screen-reader usability that scanners miss.

How to maintain it

Accessibility is not a one-time remediation; Haynes shows that even a settlement doesn't freeze your obligations, and every site change can introduce new barriers.

• Bake it into your release process. Add automated accessibility checks (axe, Lighthouse, pa11y) to CI so regressions fail the build.
• Schedule periodic manual audits — at minimum annually, and after any major redesign or new feature.
• Vet third-party components and embeds (chat widgets, booking tools, payment iframes). Their inaccessibility becomes your liability.
• Keep a remediation log with dates and fixes. Documented, ongoing effort is materially better than a static "we passed once."
• Respond promptly to complaints. Myers is the cautionary tale: ignoring a claim risks default judgment plus fees.
• Track the deadlines if you're a public entity or HHS-funded recipient — the obligation survived the 2026 extensions; only the dates shifted.

The throughline across every record here: covered, WCAG-shaped, and ongoing. Aim at WCAG 2.1 AA, test with real assistive technology, and keep testing as your site changes. Again — not legal advice; consult counsel for your situation.

Sources (the record)

• Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC (E.D.N.Y. 2017) — court
• Reed v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2018) — court
• Castillo v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (N.D. Ohio 2018) — court
• Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC (11th Cir. 2018; S.D. Fla. docket 0:17-cv-60663) — court
• Thurston v. Midvale Corporation (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) — court
• Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) — court
• Myers v. Baileys' In Midtown, Inc. (d/b/a Rooster) (E.D. Mo. 2025; docket 4:25-cv-01212) — court
• DOJ Title II Final Rule, "Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities" (89 FR 31320, Apr. 24, 2024) — Federal Register
• DOJ Interim Final Rule extending compliance dates (doc 2026-07663, Apr. 20, 2026) — Federal Register
• HHS Section 504 Interim Final Rule extending compliance dates (doc 2026-09266, May 11, 2026) — Federal Register
• 42 U.S.C. § 12182 — ADA Title III prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations — statute
• 28 CFR Part 35 — DOJ Title II web/mobile accessibility regulation (WCAG 2.1 AA) — CFR