7 reasons inaccessible websites get sued and how to avoid them

Website accessibility lawsuits can arise when accessibility barriers prevent disabled people from accessing a business's online goods, services, or functionality. Inaccessible websites create greater exposure when barriers affect essential tasks, remain unresolved, or repeatedly return. This guide explains why inaccessible websites get sued, seven circumstances that can increase ADA website lawsuit risk, and steps businesses can take to reduce accessibility barriers.

Why do inaccessible websites get sued?

Inaccessible websites can face lawsuits when disabled people encounter barriers that prevent equal access to goods or services offered online. For businesses covered by ADA Title III, the Department of Justice states that its requirements extend to goods, services, and activities offered on the web.

Website accessibility lawsuits remain a significant source of ADA Title III litigation. Seyfarth Shaw recorded 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, up 27% from 2,452 in 2024. These cases accounted for 36% of all ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court that year.

The circumstances behind inaccessible website lawsuits vary. Some involve barriers to completing essential tasks, while others follow unresolved complaints or accessibility problems introduced through website changes. The seven situations below explain where lawsuit exposure can develop and what businesses can do to reduce it.

1. Accessibility barriers prevent customers from completing key tasks

One reason inaccessible websites get sued is that accessibility barriers can interfere with access to a business's goods and services. The DOJ gives online registration as one example of a website feature that disabled people must be able to access.

The same principle can apply across other important customer journeys. Accessibility barriers may prevent someone from:

• Completing a purchase.
• Booking an appointment.
• Submitting an application.
• Creating or accessing an account.
• Finding information needed to use a service.

The relevant problem is the blocked task. A checkout could contain several individual accessibility failures, but the resulting barrier may prevent someone from buying from the business at all.

Businesses concerned about website accessibility lawsuits should identify their most important user journeys and test them from beginning to end. Checkout, booking, registration, account access, and contact processes are sensible priorities where they form part of the service.

Automated testing can identify many detectable problems within these journeys. Manual keyboard and assistive technology testing can reveal barriers that require human judgement.

2. Disabled users encounter barriers with assistive technology

Many inaccessible website lawsuits involve allegations that a website does not work properly with the technology a disabled visitor uses to browse it.

Screen readers, keyboards, switch devices, magnification software, and other assistive technologies interact with websites in different ways. A page that appears functional during ordinary visual testing may still prevent someone from reaching or operating important content.

The DOJ identifies several examples of these barriers. They include mouse-only navigation, inaccessible forms, missing image alternative text, and videos without captions.

For lawsuit risk, the important question is how those barriers affect access to the website. An inaccessible control becomes particularly consequential when it blocks an essential part of the customer's journey.

Testing should therefore include the ways disabled visitors interact with important functionality. Automated scanning can identify supported technical failures, while manual testing can assess interactions and context that software cannot reliably evaluate.

3. Accessibility problems remain after the business knows about them

A business can learn about an accessibility problem through several routes. A customer might report a barrier, an internal review may identify it, or an accessibility scan could flag an issue requiring attention.

Once a problem has been identified, it needs a clear route to the team responsible for investigating it. Findings that remain in reports without ownership can persist across releases while disabled visitors continue encountering the same barrier.

The legal effect of prior knowledge depends on the circumstances and jurisdiction. Businesses should not assume that finding an accessibility issue automatically establishes liability.

For businesses concerned about website accessibility lawsuits, known accessibility problems are worth investigating and addressing promptly. Create a process for assigning findings, determining their severity, recording decisions, and verifying completed remediation.

Accessibility complaints deserve the same structured handling. Record the affected page or function, investigate the reported experience, and make sure the complaint reaches someone who can assess the underlying problem.

4. Website changes keep introducing new accessibility barriers

Accessibility risk does not end when an audit or remediation project finishes. Websites change through new content, feature releases, design updates, CMS changes, and third-party software updates.

Any of these changes can introduce a new barrier or cause a previous fix to stop working. A redesigned checkout could create a keyboard problem, while a content update might introduce an inaccessible form or image.

This creates website accessibility lawsuit risk when regressions remain undetected until a disabled visitor encounters them. A previous accessibility review only describes the website at the time it was tested.

Regular accessibility compliance monitoring can help teams identify detectable changes between assessments. Testing should also be incorporated into release processes for important functionality.

The frequency should reflect how often the website changes. A business releasing new functionality every week needs a different review schedule from one maintaining a small website.

5. Third-party tools create inaccessible parts of essential journeys

Businesses often rely on external technology for payments, bookings, forms, chat, authentication, scheduling, and other website functionality. Third-party integrations can contribute to inaccessible website lawsuits when they create barriers within essential customer journeys. A booking widget that cannot be operated with a keyboard can affect access to the service even though another company developed the software.

The legal position around third-party content can depend on the circumstances. Businesses should seek appropriate legal advice where responsibility for a particular integration is disputed.

From an accessibility perspective, the visitor still encounters the third-party component as part of the website experience. That makes accessibility worth evaluating before a tool becomes essential to a customer journey.

Test important integrations before implementation and include them in subsequent accessibility reviews. When evaluating a provider, ask about:

Its accessibility testing practices.

• Available accessibility documentation.
• Known accessibility limitations.
• How reported accessibility issues are handled.
• How accessibility is considered when the product changes.

6. Accessibility complaints and demand letters are not addressed properly

An accessibility complaint gives a business direct information about a barrier someone has encountered. A demand letter raises the stakes further by alleging that accessibility problems have created a legal issue.

Accessibility complaints can develop into website accessibility lawsuits while the underlying barriers remain unresolved.

An ADA demand letter typically identifies accessibility barriers and requests action within a specified period. Receiving one does not itself mean that a lawsuit has already been filed. Businesses should investigate reported barriers promptly and involve appropriate legal counsel when formal legal correspondence arrives. Technical teams can assess the website, while counsel can advise on the claim, deadlines, and response.

The prevention lesson starts earlier. Clear routes for accessibility feedback give visitors a way to report problems before legal correspondence becomes the first time the organisation hears about them.

7. The business has no ongoing process for managing accessibility

An organisation can fix individual accessibility problems without having a system for what happens next. New issues can then accumulate because nobody owns monitoring, prioritisation, remediation, or verification.

The absence of an accessibility process is not itself grounds for a website accessibility lawsuit, however, the risk comes from barriers remaining unidentified or unresolved while the website continues to change.

A repeatable process gives teams a way to manage that risk. It should establish:

• Who reviews new accessibility findings.
• Who is responsible for assigning and completing fixes.
• How remediation progress is recorded.
• When completed fixes are verified.
• How new accessibility issues are identified as the website changes.

Documentation can support this process by recording assessments, detected issues, remediation activity, and subsequent testing. It should reflect real accessibility work and should not be treated as a guarantee against litigation.

For larger organisations, responsibilities may span developers, designers, content teams, legal teams, and external suppliers. Defined ownership helps prevent accessibility issues from becoming tasks that everyone can see but nobody is responsible for resolving.

How can businesses reduce website accessibility lawsuit risk?

Reducing website accessibility lawsuit risk starts with understanding where barriers could have the greatest consequences. Businesses can prioritise the pages and journeys that people rely on to access their goods or services, then make sure identified problems have a clear route to investigation and remediation.

This means looking closely at checkout flows, booking systems, account access, forms, essential information, and other functionality central to the customer experience. The priority will differ between websites, so accessibility work should reflect how people actually use the site.

Once identified problems have been addressed, verify the fixes and continue monitoring the website as it changes. WCAG provides established technical criteria that teams can use when assessing accessibility, while ADA website accessibility involves broader legal requirements concerning equal access.

How can Welcoming Web help identify accessibility risks?

Welcoming Web helps teams identify and manage supported accessibility issues across their websites. Scans assess pages against WCAG 2.2 and map findings to frameworks including ADA Title III.

Detected issues include information about the affected element and relevant accessibility criteria. For supported issue types, Welcoming Web also provides AI-assisted remediation suggestions that teams can review as part of their remediation workflow.

Recurring monitoring can surface new or returning detectable issues as a website changes. Reports and scan history can also help teams maintain a record of findings and progress over time.

Welcoming Web assists with finding supported accessibility issues and managing remediation work. Using the platform does not itself make a website accessible, certify ADA compliance, prevent website accessibility lawsuits, or provide legal advice.

Reducing lawsuit risk starts before an accessibility complaint arrives

Understanding why inaccessible websites get sued starts with recognising where accessibility barriers create meaningful legal exposure. Finding those barriers early gives businesses time to investigate and address them before they continue affecting visitors. It also makes accessibility part of normal website management, with defined ownership and regular review.

A consistent approach gives your organisation a clearer view of emerging barriers and a process for addressing them as the website changes.

Start with the site your customers are using now. Scan a page for accessibility issues with Welcoming Web and identify the detectable barriers that may need your attention.