2024 Accessibility Lawsuit Trends: What the Data Shows

2024 marked a dramatic escalation in web accessibility litigation. Over 4,000 digital accessibility lawsuits were filed, representing a 200% increase from 2020. Understanding these trends is critical for organizations seeking to assess legal risk and prioritize accessibility investment appropriately. The trajectory of accessibility lawsuits has been steeply upward. In 2010, approximately 100 digital accessibility lawsuits were filed annually. By 2015, this number had grown to roughly 500. In 2020, the count reached 2,000 cases. By 2024, that number had doubled to over 4,000 lawsuits annually. This represents more than a 4,000% increase in a single decade. This growth reflects several converging trends: increased awareness of accessibility rights, more sophisticated litigation strategies, emerging legal precedents establishing website accessibility requirements, and greater willingness by courts to hold organizations accountable. The ADA was written in 1990, but digital accessibility enforcement is primarily a phenomenon of the past five years. The velocity of litigation is accelerating, not stabilizing. Industry experts predict 2025 will see even higher filing rates as legal precedent strengthens and plaintiff advocacy organizations continue aggressive strategies. Organizations delaying accessibility investment face increasing legal exposure.

While accessibility lawsuits are filed across all 50 states, certain jurisdictions have emerged as litigation hotspots. California represents the single largest source of accessibility litigation. Over 30% of all digital accessibility lawsuits are filed in California state courts or by California-based plaintiffs. Several factors drive this concentration: California's expansive civil rights laws (particularly the Unruh Act), large venture capital and tech company presence, and an active plaintiff's bar specializing in digital accessibility. California courts have consistently interpreted the Unruh Act as applying to websites, establishing strong precedent. Organizations serving California residents face substantially higher litigation risk than those operating exclusively in other states. New York has become the second-largest source of accessibility litigation, driven partly by recent Digital Accessibility Law enactment and strong state precedent. New York's courts have established that ADA requirements extend to websites and digital properties. Florida and Illinois have emerged as secondary hotspots, each accounting for roughly 10-15% of national accessibility litigation. Both states have active plaintiff's bar organizations and courts receptive to digital accessibility claims. Federal courts see accessibility claims filed under Title III of the ADA. Unlike state court proceedings that can involve procedural complications, federal ADA litigation typically follows established patterns from decades of disability rights litigation. Conversely, some defendants view federal courts as more predictable and potentially more favorable than aggressive state courts.

Accessibility lawsuits have not distributed equally across industries. Certain sectors face dramatically higher litigation rates. E-commerce websites represent the largest source of accessibility lawsuits, accounting for approximately 40% of all digital accessibility claims. Retailers ranging from massive operations to small independent shops have faced litigation. The high transaction value of e-commerce, the complex nature of shopping functionality (product filters, shopping carts, checkout processes), and the broad customer base all contribute to higher litigation rates. Industry analysis indicates that retailers and online marketplaces have faced significant settlements. Even small e-commerce platforms have faced multi-plaintiff suits resulting in substantial settlement costs. Banks, insurance companies, and investment firms account for roughly 25% of accessibility litigation. The critical nature of financial services (people depend on these sites for essential financial management), the complexity of financial applications, and substantial transaction values make these targets attractive to plaintiff advocates. Financial institutions face particular vulnerability because their websites often serve functions that are difficult or impossible to access via phone or in-person for many disabled individuals. A person unable to access online banking due to accessibility barriers may have no alternative. Entertainment, media, and streaming services represent a growing segment of accessibility litigation, accounting for approximately 15% of cases. Streaming platforms, news sites, and entertainment retailers have all faced claims. The complexity of video players, interactive content, and streaming interfaces creates numerous accessibility barriers. While representing smaller percentages of private litigation, government websites and educational institutions face aggressive enforcement by civil rights agencies. State attorneys general and the Department of Justice have initiated enforcement actions against inaccessible government and university websites, resulting in significant remediation demands and monitoring requirements. Healthcare websites are surprisingly underrepresented in accessibility litigation relative to their importance. Patient portal accessibility, appointment scheduling systems, and medical information websites all present significant barriers. Industry experts expect healthcare litigation to increase as plaintiffs become aware of these vulnerabilities.

Understanding settlement economics helps organizations assess financial exposure and justify accessibility investment. Settlement amounts vary dramatically based on case characteristics. Single-plaintiff settlements typically range from $50,000 to $150,000. Multi-plaintiff cases frequently result in per-plaintiff settlements ranging from $100,000 to $250,000. Class action settlements have produced substantially larger awards. Multiple organizations have settled accessibility cases for significant amounts in 2024. Industry sources report that various retail chains settled for $500,000 to $2 million in aggregate, covering individual store websites and accessibility remediation costs. Technology companies have settled cases for comparable amounts addressing accessibility of user interface elements and third-party integrations. Settlement amounts represent only a portion of litigation costs. Organizations typically incur substantial additional expenses: A comprehensive accessibility audit and remediation project typically costs $20,000 to $100,000, depending on website size and complexity. This investment is substantially less than typical litigation costs. From a purely financial perspective, proactive accessibility is invariably the optimal strategy.

Understanding how plaintiffs structure cases provides insight into litigation risk. A significant portion of 2024 accessibility lawsuits were filed by individuals or organizations specializing in accessibility litigation. Some plaintiffs visit websites specifically seeking accessibility violations, then file claims. While courts scrutinize whether these plaintiffs have genuine intent to use the website, they generally permit such claims to proceed. This pattern has become controversial. Some argue it represents appropriate enforcement of disability rights; others contend it represents frivolous litigation. Regardless, organizations must recognize that accessibility violations invite this litigation model. While most accessibility claims are filed individually, class action accessibility litigation is emerging. Class action development is important because a single class certification can expose organizations to liability for all website visitors with disabilities, not just identified plaintiffs. Class action suits create enormous settlement pressure. Many accessibility claims leverage statutory damages provisions. Rather than proving actual harm, plaintiffs seek damages based on violation counts. A website with 50 accessibility violations visited by 100,000 people might theoretically face statutory damages in the millions. While courts have occasionally reduced such damages, the framework creates substantial pressure to settle.

Courts continue developing legal standards governing digital accessibility. By 2024, courts had generally established that the ADA applies to websites. Early litigation questioned this application; by 2024, this principle is widely recognized. This settled understanding increases litigation exposure for organizations with inaccessible sites. While the ADA doesn't explicitly reference WCAG standards, courts have increasingly accepted WCAG Level AA as the practical standard for compliance. Some courts apply Level AAA standards, particularly for government entities. The acceptance of WCAG standards provides clearer guidance for compliance but also creates objective metrics for assessing violations. Courts have established that even single accessibility barriers can create actionable violations. Organizations cannot argue that "most of the website is accessible" when critical functionality remains inaccessible to disabled users. This means comprehensive accessibility compliance is necessary, not optional.

The 2024 litigation landscape creates clear imperatives for organizations: Risk is not theoretical. With 4,000+ lawsuits filed annually, accessibility litigation affects organizations across all industries and sizes. Assuming your organization won't be targeted is increasingly unjustifiable. Compliance is urgent. Organizations without comprehensive accessibility programs should prioritize this immediately. Delaying increases both legal exposure and remediation costs. Investment is justified. Accessibility remediation costs less than a single lawsuit. The financial calculus is compelling. Proactive compliance protects reputationally. Organizations demonstrating commitment to accessibility build goodwill with disabled users and the broader disability community, creating positive public relations that protects against reputational harm from litigation.