Website Accessibility in 2025: Legal Challenges and Inclusive Best Practices
Accessibility isn't just a nice-to-have for online retailers - it's essential. In 2025, e-commerce businesses face a changing legal landscape for digital accessibility, with courts (especially in New York) pushing back on questionable “serial” lawsuits and new regulations on the horizon. At the same time, the disability community is fighting to uphold accessibility standards (even blocking attempted rollbacks of long-standing rules). The bottom line: making your online store accessible not only avoids lawsuits but also opens your doors to all customers and upholds core civil rights values.
Accessibility: A Core Requirement for Online Businesses
E-commerce accessibility means ensuring everyone - including people with disabilities - can shop on your site. This isn't just about avoiding legal trouble; it's rooted in fundamental civil rights. For decades, laws have required physical stores and new buildings to be accessible, and the same principle now applies to digital spaces. In fact, disability rights advocates draw parallels between building codes and web design. As one expert put it:
“We often reference the new construction regulation and approach in digital access litigation. These regulations show that Congress intended new things to be built to be fully accessible... the requirement that new = accessible is a core principle of our disability rights.” - Claudia Center, DREDF In other words, if you're launching or updating an online store, accessibility should be baked in from the start - just like ramps and elevators are for new brick-and-mortar stores. It's the right thing to do and it broadens your customer base. Shoppers who are blind, deaf, or have mobility or cognitive impairments represent a sizable audience with spending power. An accessible website invites everyone in, whereas an inaccessible one can turn away paying customers.
Legal Landscape: Rising Lawsuits and Court Pushback
The surge of ADA web accessibility lawsuits in recent years has put e-commerce sites under the legal microscope. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against businesses whose websites weren't usable by people with disabilities. Often, a handful of serial plaintiffs and law firms drive these cases, filing dozens of nearly identical complaints across different websites. For example, one blind plaintiff in New York claimed he tried to buy 40 different products from dozens of online stores in a single week - with each site allegedly having barriers that stopped him. This “copy-paste” approach has tested the patience of some courts.
In 2025, courts are starting to push back on questionable claims, especially in New York. Federal judges there have grown more skeptical about whether serial filers really suffered a personal injury on each site. In one case, a judge ordered a closer look (including an evidentiary hearing) before allowing a visually impaired plaintiff's lawsuit to proceed The judge noted that “Article III standing is not merely a pleading hurdle” but a constitutional requirement - meaning a plaintiff must show a genuine, personal stake in the matter, not just roam the country looking for lawsuits. Another New York judge went so far as to dismiss a website accessibility case outright when the plaintiff failed to plausibly show he intended to return to the business's website (or the physical restaurant it listed) after encountering access barriers. The court found it telling that the plaintiff never tried other ways to get the information (given his urgency to visit the restaurant) and noted he had filed 27 similar lawsuits recently. In short, judges are demanding more concrete proof of harm and intent to use the site - merely claiming “I wanted to buy something but couldn't” is no longer always enough.
Even within the same court, outcomes can differ dramatically. In the Southern District of New York, one judge allowed a case to proceed because the plaintiff provided detailed specifics - she listed exactly when she visited, what item she tried to buy (a picnic lunch bag), what accessibility barriers she encountered, and why she genuinely wanted to return (she liked the affordable products and free shipping). Yet another judge in a similar case threw out the lawsuit because that plaintiff gave only a vague range of dates for her attempts and more generic descriptions of the barriers. As the commentator wryly observed, the differences between the two cases were “razor thin - if not invisible,” underscoring that results can hinge on which judge you get. In other words, litigation has become a bit of a roll of the dice in some jurisdictions.
Location also matters: Different courts have taken different stances on ADA coverage for websites. In the Third Circuit (which covers states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania), courts stick to a “nexus” rule - the ADA only applies to a website if it has a tie to a physical storefront. A recent New Jersey case (Herrera v. TJX) reaffirmed that a purely online retailer might escape ADA liability in that circuit unless the website connects to a brick-and-mortar location. By contrast, in places like New York or California, plaintiffs routinely sue online-only businesses under the ADA. In California, many website cases invoke the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which sets penalties around $4,000 per violation. Plaintiffs there often prefer state court (where standing rules are looser and Unruh damages apply), while defendants try to move cases to federal court. For instance, one California lawsuit stayed in federal court because the plaintiff's broad allegations of repeated site visits meant potential Unruh Act damages could stack up over $75,000, meeting the threshold for federal jurisdiction. These jurisdictional tug-of-wars show how plaintiffs strategize to maximize financial exposure, and how defendants counter-strategize to limit it.
Notably, web accessibility litigation is spreading beyond the usual hot spots. While New York, California, and Florida have long been epicenters of these suits, other regions are now on the radar. Over 200 businesses in Missouri and Minnesota were hit with website accessibility lawsuits in the past year alone. Many followed a quick settlement pattern driven by a few local attorneys. This uptick in the Midwest (the Eighth Circuit) surprised observers and shows that no region is truly safe from accessibility claims anymore.
For e-commerce companies, the takeaway is clear: the risk of litigation is real if your site isn't accessible. Even if some courts are scrutinizing plaintiffs more, lawsuits continue to be filed across the country. Defending these cases can be expensive and distracting. Many suits still end in settlement - often for relatively modest sums, but if a case drags on or turns into a class action, the costs can skyrocket. (One major fashion retailer recently paid about $5 million to settle a prolonged accessibility lawsuit - a stark jump from the under-$10k settlements typical in quick cases.) In short, it's far better to address accessibility issues proactively than to gamble on litigation.
Progress and Best Practices: How to Stay Ahead
The good news is that efforts are underway to bring clearer guidance to web accessibility, and there are established best practices you can follow right now. Policy makers are paying attention: A bipartisan bill in Congress - the proposed Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act of 2025 - seeks to establish clear accessibility standards for private sector websites and apps. If passed, this law would finally specify what technical criteria online businesses must meet, which could reduce the legal gray areas. On the regulatory side, the U.S. Department of Justice has been working (slowly) on rules for website accessibility under the ADA. However, political shifts can impact momentum. This year, the disability community had to mobilize when the Department of Energy (under a new administration) tried to roll back long-standing accessibility rules for physical facilities. Thanks to over 20,000 public comments in protest, that rollback was put on hold for further review. The fight showed how vigilant advocates are against any erosion of accessibility requirements. It also signaled that digital accessibility regulations - if proposed - would likely get similar strong support from disability advocates, despite any political headwinds.
Regardless of how quickly new laws or DOJ rules come into play, the best course for businesses is to adopt recognized accessibility standards now. The consensus benchmark is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) - specifically WCAG 2.1 Level AA, which many consider the practical level of accessibility compliance for websites. In fact, several states have already referenced WCAG 2.1 AA in their own requirements for government or public-facing sites. By aligning your e-commerce site with these guidelines, you not only reduce legal risk but also improve the user experience for a significant portion of the population.
So, what can online retailers do to make their websites accessible? Here are some key best practices:
- Follow WCAG Standards: Ensure your site meets WCAG 2.1 AA criteria. This covers things like providing text alternatives (alt text) for images, adding captions for videos, using proper headings structure for screen readers, sufficient color contrast for text, and making all interactive elements usable via keyboard (for those who can't use a mouse). These guidelines serve as a roadmap for inclusive design.
- Regular Audits and User Testing: Don't set it and forget it. Use automated tools and manual audits to regularly scan for accessibility issues. Better yet, involve users with disabilities in testing your site's usability - their feedback is invaluable. Issues can creep in with new updates, so make accessibility checks a routine part of development cycles.
- Build Accessibility into Development: Train your developers and designers on accessibility fundamentals. Adopt an accessibility-first mindset when adding new features or pages - much like Claudia Center's principle that anything new should be accessible from the start. This proactive approach is easier and cheaper than retrofitting fixes later.
- Have an Accessibility Policy & Feedback Channel: Let customers know you care about inclusion. Publish an accessibility statement on your site that outlines your commitment and provides a way for users to report problems. If a disabled customer does encounter a barrier, having a clear path to get help or request accommodations can turn a negative experience into a positive one (and shows good faith if you ever face a legal challenge). By taking these steps, e-commerce businesses can significantly reduce the chances of being caught off-guard by a lawsuit. More importantly, you'll deliver a smoother shopping experience for everyone, which is good business. In an era where online shopping is ubiquitous, accessibility is as essential as mobile-friendliness - it ensures no customer is left behind. As legal trends in 2025 have shown, the cost of inaction can be high, whether in courtroom battles or lost customer loyalty. On the flip side, the reward for doing the right thing is a wider audience and the confidence that your brand stands for inclusivity. In summary: accessible e-commerce is not just about compliance - it's about providing equal access to the convenience and opportunities of online shopping for all people.
Remember: The insights above are based on recent legal updates and expert commentary on digital accessibility, including ADA litigation trends, advocacy actions, and proposed laws. These resources underscore the importance of e-commerce accessibility and the direction things are headed. By learning from these developments, online businesses can stay ahead of the curve and ensure their digital doors are open to everyone.