Major 2024 Accessibility Settlements: Case Studies and Lessons

2024 produced several landmark accessibility settlements that shed light on litigation patterns, defendant vulnerabilities, and the real-world consequences of inaccessible digital properties. Examining these cases reveals actionable insights for organizations seeking to minimize legal exposure. Settlement data from 2024 accessibility cases reveals important patterns. Average settlements increased from 2023, with more cases involving multiple plaintiffs and class action frameworks. The sophistication of plaintiff claims and defendant defenses both increased, reflecting maturation of digital accessibility litigation. While detailed settlement information is often confidential, public filings, press releases, and industry reporting provide sufficient data to identify patterns. These patterns offer guidance for organizations seeking to avoid similar outcomes.

A major U.S. e-commerce retailer (not publicly identified due to confidentiality) settled a class action accessibility claim for $1.2 million in 2024. The suit alleged that the website's product filtering system, image zoom functionality, and checkout process were inaccessible to blind and low-vision users relying on screen readers. Product filtering: The advanced product filter interface used JavaScript interactions that weren't properly announced to screen readers. Users couldn't filter by size, color, or price without visual interaction. Image interactions: The zoom functionality allowing detailed product image examination wasn't keyboard-accessible and didn't communicate zoom state to screen readers. Checkout process: Form fields lacked proper label associations, and error messages weren't clearly linked to problematic fields. Mobile experience: The mobile checkout flow was particularly problematic, with touch targets smaller than 44x44 pixels and insufficient contrast in form inputs. The $1.2 million settlement included $750,000 to plaintiff's attorney fees, $150,000 for individual plaintiff compensation, $300,000 for website remediation and ongoing accessibility services, and $200,000 for monitoring and compliance over two years. This case illustrates that complex e-commerce functionality creates accessibility barriers. Interactive features like product filters and image zoom require careful ARIA implementation and keyboard support. The settlement's size reflects the scope of remediation required across the entire platform. The case also demonstrates that even major retailers with substantial resources face accessibility liability. Large companies cannot assume their technical sophistication translates to accessibility compliance.

A major bank settled individual accessibility claims totaling $890,000 in 2024 for an inaccessible online banking portal. Seven plaintiffs with various disabilities filed separate claims regarding portal functionality inaccessibility. Complex account interface: The main account dashboard used custom JavaScript components without proper ARIA labels, making account balances and transaction history invisible to screen readers. Investment account access: Portfolio management tools required mouse interactions for graphical interface components, preventing keyboard-only access. Bill payment system: The bill payment interface lacked proper form labeling and didn't clearly communicate required vs. optional fields. Mobile banking: The mobile app (covered by ADA requirements) had poor contrast and tiny touch targets. Individual settlements averaged $127,000 per plaintiff. The bank agreed to full remediation of online banking portal accessibility, hiring an independent accessibility consultant for quarterly audits, implementing accessibility training for development teams, and establishing a dedicated accessibility position. Financial services present particular accessibility challenges due to complexity and criticality. Users cannot simply call customer service for account access; the digital interface must be fully functional. The bank's willingness to fund ongoing compliance and hire permanent accessibility staff reflects the seriousness courts attach to digital accessibility in critical services. This case demonstrates that organizations cannot remediate once and move on. Ongoing compliance requires sustained investment and organizational commitment.

A streaming entertainment platform settled a class action video accessibility claim for $950,000 in 2024. The suit alleged that video content lacked captions and audio descriptions, creating barriers for deaf and blind users. Missing captions: Approximately 30% of the platform's content lacked captions, particularly original programming and documentary content. Audio descriptions: While some content included audio descriptions, many titles had none. Audio description production requirements weren't systematized. Video player interface: The custom video player interface wasn't fully keyboard-accessible, and captions weren't properly labeled. The $950,000 settlement required immediate captioning of all new content, systematic audio description production for major titles, and a plan to caption 80% of existing content within 18 months. The platform agreed to third-party compliance monitoring and accessibility training for content production teams. Video content accessibility presents ongoing challenges as platforms continually add new content. One-time remediation is insufficient; content production processes must incorporate accessibility requirements. The settlement's substantial size reflects recognition that video accessibility affects millions of people. This case shows that even media giants with sophisticated content management systems face accessibility liability. Accessibility must be built into content production from the start, not retrofitted afterward.

A major university settled a state attorney general enforcement action requiring comprehensive website accessibility remediation. While not a traditional lawsuit, the settlement resulted from formal state enforcement, creating accessibility requirements and monitoring obligations. Structural inconsistency: Different departments maintained separate websites with inconsistent accessibility approaches. Some departmental sites met basic requirements; others had numerous barriers. PDF accessibility: Course materials and forms in PDF format were frequently inaccessible. Online course platforms: Learning management system content lacked proper heading structure and form labeling. Lack of governance: No university-wide accessibility standards or training existed. The remediation plan required development of university-wide accessibility standards, hiring a Chief Accessibility Officer, mandatory accessibility training for web teams, accessibility testing protocols before launch, and quarterly compliance monitoring by state officials. Large organizations with distributed web management face particular accessibility challenges. Without centralized governance and standards, departments create inconsistent experiences. This case demonstrates that lack of organizational accessibility commitment creates liability. Government enforcement actions often result in more onerous requirements than private litigation because they include monitoring and reporting obligations. The university's requirement to hire a Chief Accessibility Officer reflects recognition that ongoing executive leadership is essential.

A healthcare system settled accessibility claims totaling $680,000 in 2024 for an inaccessible patient portal. The suit alleged that patients with disabilities couldn't access appointment scheduling, test results, or medication information. Interactive calendar: The appointment scheduling calendar wasn't keyboard-accessible and didn't properly announce available dates and times. Results presentation: Test results were presented in image format without text alternatives or data table equivalents. Medication information: Complex medication interaction information relied on visual tables without accessible equivalents. Mobile barriers: The mobile portal's form inputs lacked labels and had poor contrast. The healthcare system agreed to full portal remediation, establishment of a patient accessibility coordinator position, accessibility training for clinical and IT staff, and incorporation of accessibility requirements into vendor selection processes. Healthcare digital properties create particularly serious accessibility consequences because inaccessibility can affect medical care. Courts view healthcare accessibility failures as more serious than comparable barriers in other contexts. The settlement's substantial size reflects recognition that patients depend on portal access for essential medical information. Organizations providing critical services face heightened expectations and liability.

Lack of accessibility governance: Organizations without accessibility standards or centralized leadership faced larger settlements. Multiple years of inaction: Defendants who had been informed of accessibility issues but taken no action faced higher damages. Contractor reliance: Organizations that blamed contractors for accessibility failures still faced liability. No accessibility testing: Absence of accessibility testing protocols demonstrated insufficient diligence.

Beyond financial payments, 2024 settlements increasingly included ongoing compliance obligations including hiring accessibility professionals (Chief Accessibility Officer, accessibility coordinators), mandatory accessibility training for development and QA teams, third-party monitoring and compliance verification, regular accessibility audits and reporting, and accessibility requirements in vendor/contractor agreements. These ongoing obligations create long-term costs exceeding initial settlement amounts. Organizations can face years of monitoring expenses and required operational changes.

Analysis of 2024 cases suggests 2025 settlement patterns: Increased class action settlements: More class actions are progressing to settlement stage, potentially resulting in higher aggregate damages. Focus on emerging technologies: AI-generated content, chatbots, and interactive features may face increased scrutiny for accessibility. Mobile app accessibility: More litigation targeting mobile app accessibility as courts confirm app accessibility requirements. Third-party vendor accountability: Increased legal action against platform providers and web accessibility tool vendors.