The Fundamental Problem: No Federal Enforcement Mechanism
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. The answer: you do. People with disabilities. If a website is inaccessible, the enforcement mechanism is entirely individual: 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. This creates what accessibility advocates call an "enforcement gap":
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
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?
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. Serial filers exist because: Serial filers are not:
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)
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
As serial filing has become visible, website operators and some legal observers have pushed back, framing individual enforcement as a problem: This framing ignores who's actually being harmed: The "serial filer" backlash creates a system where disabled users have MORE barriers, not fewer: Because there's no government enforcement, a disabled person who wants to use an inaccessible website faces a choice: 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. The serial filer narrative reframes accessibility discrimination as a problem with disabled people, not with website owners: When disabled users know they'll be labeled "serial filers" or frivolous complainers: The most important point: multiple filers against different websites is NOT evidence of frivolous litigation. It's evidence that:
"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)
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
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
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
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
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
In other civil rights contexts, federal enforcement creates pressure for compliance: These agencies don't wait for individuals to file complaints. They conduct audits, inspections, and investigations. This creates systematic pressure for compliance. For web accessibility, the approach is different: Some argue the enforcement gap exists because: None of these justify the complete absence of proactive federal enforcement.
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
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
"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
The Real Cost: Disabled Users Navigate More Barriers
The enforcement gap creates a terrible paradox for disabled users: In a typical day using the web, a disabled person might encounter: 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.
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
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
Why "Serial Filers" File Against Similar Barriers
Many inaccessible websites share the same barriers because: Some disability rights advocates strategically file complaints against patterns of violations: This is not frivolous. It's highlighting systemic accessibility failures that a federal enforcement agency would address proactively.
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
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
What Real Accountability Would Look Like
Effective accessibility compliance would require: With real federal enforcement: Without federal enforcement, the current system relies on: This is not a sustainable or just system.
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
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
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"
Why Individual Enforcement Matters (Until the System Changes)
Until the federal government enforces web accessibility, individual complaints are the only mechanism that creates pressure for change. People who file multiple complaints are: Many serial filers work with disability organizations and are motivated by: They're not motivated by getting rich on settlement money. They're motivated by making the web accessible. Instead of stigmatizing "serial filers," we should:
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
Personal experience of discrimination
Commitment to accessibility as a civil right
Desire for systemic change
Making examples of businesses that refuse compliance
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"
Document Systemic Barriers
Barriers you encounter aren't isolated. They're part of a systemic problem. Get an audit identifying specific WCAG violations for your records.