2025 Accessibility Litigation Predictions: What to Expect

Based on current trends, 2025 is expected to see increased digital accessibility litigation. If patterns continue, filing rates will remain substantial. This acceleration reflects multiple converging factors: established litigation infrastructure, refined plaintiff strategies, growing legal precedent, and strong economic incentives for plaintiff attorneys. Legal experts indicate that accessibility litigation will likely continue growing year-over-year. Organizations should plan for accessibility as an ongoing business priority rather than a one-time compliance project. Most concerning for organizations: current remediation capacity cannot keep pace with litigation growth. Skilled accessibility consultants, developers, and testers remain in short supply. Organizations seeking remediation in 2025 may face significant project delays and premium pricing for limited accessibility expertise.

AI-generated content and AI-powered interfaces represent an emerging litigation frontier. Questions about accessibility for AI chatbots, AI-generated images without alt text, and AI interfaces with accessibility barriers will likely trigger litigation. Organizations haven't established accessibility standards for AI features, creating numerous potential compliance gaps. Industry experts anticipate that accessibility requirements for AI-powered features will emerge as a significant litigation area. Organizations should proactively address AI accessibility. As voice interfaces proliferate, accessibility questions will emerge regarding voice-only interfaces and voice-activated commerce. Voice interface accessibility represents a developing area of legal attention. While websites have faced substantial litigation, mobile apps remain a developing area of legal focus. Legal precedent clarifying that apps must meet accessibility standards will likely drive increased mobile app litigation. Organizations with mobile applications should prioritize accessibility compliance. Websites increasingly rely on third-party tools (analytics, advertising networks, chat widgets). Litigation will likely address responsibility for accessibility barriers created by third-party tools. This evolving area could shift accountability from website owners to tool developers. Multiple lawsuits have already challenged accessibility overlay solutions. 2025 will likely see continued litigation questioning the efficacy of overlay-based compliance approaches. Organizations using overlays should understand this emerging legal challenge.

Plaintiff attorneys are increasingly pursuing coordinated multi-state litigation strategies. Rather than scattered individual cases, expect organized campaigns targeting specific industries or company types across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. The European Accessibility Act, UK Digital Accessibility Regulations, Canada's Accessible Canada Act, and similar international requirements create international litigation risk. Organizations with international presence should understand varying global accessibility requirements. Different states have different accessibility laws and judicial interpretations. Organizations should understand jurisdiction-specific exposure based on where customers are located and where they operate.

Social media platforms have received less accessibility litigation attention than other industries. Core platform accessibility (timeline, messaging, content creation) and creator tools present accessibility questions. Industry experts anticipate this area will receive increased litigation attention. Inaccessible hiring platforms exclude disabled workers from employment opportunities. As organizations recognize this issue, litigation targeting recruiting sites and applicant tracking systems will likely increase. E-learning platforms have retained significant accessibility gaps. As regulatory attention increases, expect continued enforcement against educational technology companies and universities regarding learning management system accessibility. Cryptocurrency exchanges and fintech applications have received limited accessibility oversight. These platforms' complex interfaces present accessibility barriers that will likely trigger litigation and regulatory attention. Federal and state governments will likely continue enforcement against inaccessible government websites and services. The Department of Justice will likely continue monitoring government accessibility.

Courts are increasingly willing to enhance damages against defendants who demonstrated knowledge of accessibility requirements but failed to comply. This distinction between negligent and willful non-compliance will likely drive higher damages, incentivizing proactive remediation. Expect continued development of class action standards in accessibility litigation. Broader class action certifications could expose organizations to aggregate liability spanning numerous claimants. Disability advocates will increasingly connect accessibility to broader social justice frameworks. Combined discrimination theories could emerge, potentially creating enhanced legal exposure.

Plaintiff advocacy organizations are increasingly coordinating organized campaigns targeting specific industries or company types simultaneously across multiple jurisdictions. Litigation will increasingly focus on publicly traded companies because public company accessibility liability affects shareholder value and attracts media attention. Expect accessibility to become a shareholder activism issue. Sophisticated plaintiffs will bundle accessibility claims with other legal theories, creating maximum settlement pressure. Defending against bundled claims increases litigation costs, incentivizing settlement.

Additional states will likely address digital accessibility through legislation. Expected: continued state-level legislative activity regarding web and digital accessibility requirements. Federal accessibility standards (particularly Section 508) may see updates addressing newer technologies and accessibility requirements. Federal agencies will likely continue monitoring digital accessibility compliance. Legislation addressing platform accountability and social media regulation may include accessibility components.

Litigation economics continue to favor settlement. Defense costs for accessibility cases typically exceed settlement amounts, incentivizing negotiated resolutions. 2025 settlements will increasingly include ongoing monitoring requirements, compliance reporting obligations, and accessibility officer hiring requirements. These ongoing commitments extend accessibility costs beyond initial settlement. Settlements increasingly address third-party vendor accountability and accessibility requirements in vendor contracts.