Serial Filers and the ADA Enforcement Gap: Why the Burden Falls on Disabled Users

If you spend time in accessibility advocacy circles, you've likely heard the term "serial filer"—sometimes used dismissively to describe people with disabilities who file multiple accessibility complaints against different websites.

But this framing obscures a critical truth: the existence of serial filers isn't a legal problem to be solved. It's a symptom of a systemic enforcement failure. When people with disabilities file complaints against multiple websites, they're not being frivolous. They're exercising their only real enforcement mechanism in a legal system that has abdicated government responsibility for accessibility compliance.

The Fundamental Problem: No Federal Enforcement Mechanism

How Title III Enforcement Should Work

Most federal civil rights laws include federal enforcement. When a business violates the Civil Rights Act, the Department of Justice can investigate and bring enforcement actions. When businesses violate OSHA regulations, federal inspectors check compliance.

But ADA Title III, which covers public accommodations, has a peculiar design: there is no federal enforcement agency actively ensuring compliance. The Department of Justice can investigate complaints after the fact, but does not conduct proactive audits or inspections.

Who Actually Enforces Title III Compliance?

The answer: you do. People with disabilities.

If a website is inaccessible, the enforcement mechanism is entirely individual:

• A person with a disability encounters the barrier
• They document it (if they have resources and technical knowledge)
• They contact the website owner
• If the owner refuses, they can sue individually
• Or they file a complaint with the DOJ, hoping investigation eventually occurs

There is no government-funded accessibility auditor. There is no federal inspector checking websites. There is no proactive enforcement. It all depends on individual users identifying barriers and pursuing remedies.

The "Enforcement Gap"

This creates what accessibility advocates call an "enforcement gap":

• Thousands of websites remain inaccessible
• Most website owners never face consequences
• Many aren't even aware their sites are inaccessible
• No mechanism exists to systematically improve web accessibility
• Compliance is entirely optional without individual pressure

What Are Serial Filers and Why Do They Exist?

Definition

A "serial filer" refers to a person with disabilities who files accessibility complaints against multiple websites, often many websites over time. Some file against dozens or even hundreds of different website operators.

Why Serial Filers Exist (The Real Reason)

Serial filers exist because:

• Barriers Are Everywhere: Inaccessible websites are ubiquitous. A person using a screen reader will encounter dozens of broken websites in a single day of normal internet use
• No Alternative Enforcement: Since the government doesn't proactively enforce, individual complaints are the only mechanism that creates pressure
• Accessibility Advocates Use Legal Tools: People committed to accessibility access use the legal system because it's the only tool available
• Systemic Pattern: When the same barriers repeat across websites (missing alt text, keyboard traps, poor contrast), they file similar complaints
• Pattern-Based Filing: Some strategically target specific types of violations (e.g., e-commerce sites that all use the same template with similar barriers)

What Serial Filers Are NOT Doing

Serial filers are not:

• Being frivolous or vexatious (they're filing against legitimately inaccessible sites)
• Filing against the same company repeatedly (they typically target different businesses)
• Filing fake or exaggerated claims (barriers are real)
• Making up violations (accessibility standards are technical and verifiable)
• Gaming the system (they're using the legal system as designed when no other option exists)

How the Serial Filer Stigma Harms Disabled Users

The Backlash Against Individual Enforcement

As serial filing has become visible, website operators and some legal observers have pushed back, framing individual enforcement as a problem:

• "Serial filers are abusing the legal system"
• "These are frivolous lawsuits for quick settlements"
• "We can't afford to defend ourselves against individual complaints"
• "This is why we need WCAG to be clarified" (implying the current law is too broad)

The Injustice This Creates

This framing ignores who's actually being harmed:

1. Burden Multiplies for Disabled Users

The "serial filer" backlash creates a system where disabled users have MORE barriers, not fewer:

• Website owners respond to serial filers by becoming defensive and resistant to complaints
• Rather than fixing accessibility, they hire lawyers to fight claims
• They may retaliate against people who complain
• The costs of litigation discourage individual complaints
• Result: barriers remain, often for years, while legal battles continue

2. The Disabled Person Must Become a Litigant

Because there's no government enforcement, a disabled person who wants to use an inaccessible website faces a choice:

• Accept the barrier and go without the service
• Become a litigant and hire an attorney
• These are the only options available
• There is no middle ground where a government agency fixes the problem

This places an enormous burden on disabled people. You shouldn't need to become a lawsuit party to access a retail website or bank account.

3. Discrimination Becomes Normalized

The serial filer narrative reframes accessibility discrimination as a problem with disabled people, not with website owners:

• Instead of asking "Why are so many websites inaccessible?" we ask "Why are so many disabled people suing?"
• Instead of demanding government enforcement, we demonize disabled people for using the legal system
• This deflects from the real problem: widespread accessibility discrimination
• It becomes another form of disability discrimination dressed as concern about legal abuse

4. It Discourages People from Asserting Rights

When disabled users know they'll be labeled "serial filers" or frivolous complainers:

• They're less likely to file complaints about barriers they experience
• They self-censor to avoid being seen as "that person who sues"
• They internalize the stigma and blame themselves instead of the website
• Fewer complaints are filed, so barriers persist unchecked
• Website owners have even less pressure to improve

5. Each Filing is Evidence of Continuing Discrimination

The most important point: multiple filers against different websites is NOT evidence of frivolous litigation. It's evidence that:

• Widespread accessibility discrimination exists
• Most website owners are not voluntarily complying
• The enforcement gap is real and harmful
• Without individual legal action, barriers would be even more endemic
• The legal system is working as designed when no federal enforcement exists

The Real Problem: Systemic Enforcement Failure

How It Should Work (But Doesn't)

In other civil rights contexts, federal enforcement creates pressure for compliance:

• Housing discrimination: HUD investigates fair housing complaints
• Employment discrimination: EEOC investigates and can bring enforcement actions
• Voting access: DOJ investigates voting rights violations
• Workplace safety: OSHA inspects workplaces proactively

These agencies don't wait for individuals to file complaints. They conduct audits, inspections, and investigations. This creates systematic pressure for compliance.

The ADA Approach (Hands-Off Federal Enforcement)

For web accessibility, the approach is different:

• No federal inspectors audit websites
• No proactive investigations for compliance
• The DOJ responds to complaints but has limited resources
• No systematic data collection on accessibility failures
• Result: Website owners have minimal pressure to comply voluntarily

Why This Gap Exists (And It's Not Justified)

Some argue the enforcement gap exists because:

• "There are too many websites to audit" — But that's an argument for MORE resources, not less enforcement
• "Technology changes too fast" — Yet accessibility standards remain relatively stable
• "It's unclear what compliance means" — WCAG provides clear guidance
• "Websites are private property" — They're public accommodations when they serve the public

None of these justify the complete absence of proactive federal enforcement.

The Real Cost: Disabled Users Navigate More Barriers

The Paradox

The enforcement gap creates a terrible paradox for disabled users:

• The Problem: Inaccessible websites are ubiquitous
• The Reason: Most website owners face no consequences for non-compliance
• The Mechanism: No federal enforcement agency ensures compliance
• The Result: Individual disabled people must litigate to access basic services
• The Backlash: Those who do litigate are stigmatized as "serial filers"
• The Outcome: Fewer disabled people file complaints, so even fewer websites improve

What Disabled Users Face Daily

In a typical day using the web, a disabled person might encounter:

• A retailer's website with missing product descriptions (can't purchase)
• A bank's site with keyboard traps (can't access accounts)
• A healthcare provider's portal without captions (can't understand instructions)
• Government websites that are technically required to be accessible but aren't
• Social media platforms with poor compatibility with screen readers

For each barrier, the disabled user has limited options: accept discrimination, file a complaint and hope for investigation, or hire a lawyer and become a litigant.

Why "Serial Filers" File Against Similar Barriers

Templates and Common Mistakes

Many inaccessible websites share the same barriers because:

• They use similar templates or platforms with the same accessibility problems
• Common mistakes repeat across the web (missing alt text, poor contrast, keyboard traps)
• Most developers don't prioritize accessibility
• Accessibility standards aren't widely taught or followed

Pattern-Based Enforcement

Some disability rights advocates strategically file complaints against patterns of violations:

• E-commerce sites using the same shopping platform
• Financial institutions with similar barriers
• Websites using inaccessible design frameworks
• This draws attention to systemic problems, not just individual sites

This is not frivolous. It's highlighting systemic accessibility failures that a federal enforcement agency would address proactively.

What Real Accountability Would Look Like

Federal Enforcement Mechanism

Effective accessibility compliance would require:

• A federal agency with authority and resources to audit websites
• Regular proactive inspections of high-traffic websites
• Clear penalties for non-compliance (not just lawsuits)
• Technical guidance and resources to help sites achieve compliance
• Public reporting on compliance across industries

What This Would Eliminate

With real federal enforcement:

• Disabled users wouldn't need to become litigants
• Website owners would know compliance is expected and enforced
• Most barriers would be fixed before disabled users encountered them
• Individual complaints would supplement, not replace, enforcement
• There would be no "serial filer" problem because barriers would be rare

The Current Alternative

Without federal enforcement, the current system relies on:

• Disabled users identifying barriers (unpaid enforcement labor)
• Disabled users contacting website owners (free compliance consulting)
• Disabled users suing when owners refuse to comply (litigation at individual expense)
• Stigmatizing those who do sue as "frivolous" or "serial filers"

This is not a sustainable or just system.

Why Individual Enforcement Matters (Until the System Changes)

Serial Filers Are Accessibility Heroes

Until the federal government enforces web accessibility, individual complaints are the only mechanism that creates pressure for change. People who file multiple complaints are:

• Asserting their legal rights under disability rights law
• Exercising the enforcement mechanism available to them
• Creating pressure for compliance when no federal agency will
• Setting precedent that accessibility discrimination has consequences
• Advocating for broader systemic change

They're Not Frivolous or Greedy

Many serial filers work with disability organizations and are motivated by:

• Personal experience of discrimination
• Commitment to accessibility as a civil right
• Desire for systemic change
• Making examples of businesses that refuse compliance

They're not motivated by getting rich on settlement money. They're motivated by making the web accessible.

The Solution Isn't to Blame Disabled Users

Instead of stigmatizing "serial filers," we should:

• Demand federal enforcement resources
• Hold website owners accountable for intentional non-compliance
• Support disability advocacy organizations bringing strategic cases
• Recognize that multiple complaints indicate systemic failure, not individual abuse
• Reframe the debate from "too many lawsuits" to "too little enforcement"