EcomBack 2023 Website Accessibility Lawsuits Mid-Year Trends

1,979 ADA lawsuits filed against websites from January to June 2023

State-by-state breakdown of ADA lawsuit activity in the United States. Further details are provided below.

Number of lawsuits from january to june 2023: New York, 1136, California 422, Florida 256, Pennsylvania 96, and other states 96.

ADA Website Lawsuits: Insights & Implications:
Navigating the maze of website accessibility has never been more critical. Dive into our thorough examination of 2023 mid-year ADA lawsuits, providing insights into industries at risk, the effectiveness of accessibility overlay tools, and the platforms under scrutiny. Equip your business with the knowledge to advance confidently towards an inclusive digital future.

Key Findings

ADA Website Lawsuits Filed by State January - June 2023

State Wise - Total ADA Lawsuits Filed Total Lawsuits Percentage January February March April May June
New York 1139 57.55% 159 185 210 209 174 202
California 422 21.32% 52 16 77 84 88 105
Florida 256 12.94% 54 43 52 41 36 30
Pennsylvania 96 4.85% 19 13 33 1 6 24
All Other States 66 3.34% 4 6 14 6 17 19
Jan to June 2023 ADA Website Lawsuits 1979 100.00% 288 263 386 341 321 380

Segment Summary:

From January to June 2023, there were 1,979 ADA lawsuits filed against websites in the US.

New York was the predominant state with a total of 1,139 lawsuits. In terms of monthly trends, June saw the highest number of lawsuits with 380 cases. However, March and April also witnessed a considerable number, with 386 and 341 cases, respectively, closely trailing June.

While an ADA lawsuit can technically be filed anywhere, irrespective of the business’s location, the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is often favored when it comes to ADA lawsuits due to its favorable legal environment and precedents for plaintiffs. This isn’t necessarily indicative of a greater number of non-compliant businesses in New York, but rather certain judges in the SDNY showing a higher propensity to entertain such lawsuits.

Businesses, regardless of their physical location, should be attentive to ADA website compliance, especially given the substantial legal activity observed in the first half of 2023.

51% of ADA website lawsuits in the first 6 months of 2023 were filed by only 24 plaintiffs

A close examination of ADA website lawsuits from the first half of 2023 has revealed intriguing trends.
The overarching insight: while there are over 130 plaintiffs in the mix, a mere 24 of them account for almost half of the lawsuits.
This phenomenon presents both challenges and opportunities for businesses striving to adhere to ADA compliance.

Plaintiff Name Firm Name Jan to June Percentage January February March April May June
Perla Mageno Manning Law, APC 84 4.24% 1 0 12 27 22 22
Andrew Toro Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC 75 3.79% 0 18 14 25 6 3
Jenny Hwang Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC 68 3.44% 6 5 16 22 11 8
Luis Toro Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC 56 2.83% 0 0 15 8 17 16
Daniel Lugo Lee D. Sarkin 52 2.63% 15 11 6 0 10 10
Arantza Espinoza Mendez Law Offices, PLLC 50 2.53% 5 5 13 5 15 7
Daniel Rodriguez Stein Saks, PLLC 45 2.27% 21 12 2 5 5 0
Lamar Brown Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC 45 2.27% 0 14 0 20 11 0
James Watson J. Courtney Cunningham, PLLC 43 2.17% 7 7 6 14 6 3
Victor Ariza Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A. 41 2.07% 3 8 13 7 6 4
Rusty Rendon Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC 39 1.97% 4 0 5 8 12 10
Jasmine Toro Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC 38 1.92% 7 12 3 3 6 7
Luis Licea Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC 37 1.87% 2 0 11 6 7 11
Linda Slade Shaked Law Group, P.C. 36 1.82% 3 7 8 4 5 9
Windy Lucius J. Courtney Cunningham, PLLC 35 1.77% 9 5 4 6 3 8
Janelys Hernandez Law Office of Noor A. Saab 34 1.72% 0 0 21 8 4 1
Isabel Rendon Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC 34 1.72% 0 0 16 10 4 4
Nelson Fernandez Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A. 33 1.67% 1 4 11 6 5 6
Drew Hunthausen Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC 31 1.57% 8 0 6 8 3 6
Seana Cromitie Stein Saks, PLLC 29 1.47% 0 0 10 0 9 10
Maria Dimeglio Stein Saks, PLLC 29 1.47% 0 0 0 0 11 18
Blair Douglass East End Trial Group LLC 25 1.26% 19 5 0 0 1 0
Bryan Velazquez Stein Saks, PLLC 25 1.26% 10 8 0 0 2 5
Denise Crumwell Gottlieb & Associates 25 1.26% 0 6 12 2 3 2
24 Plaintiffs Filed 50% of Total Lawsuits 1,009 50.99% 130 127 204 194 184 170
113 Plaintiffs Collectively Filed 970 49.01% 158 136 182 147 137 210
Total ADA Website Lawsuits Filed By 137 Plaintiffs 1,979 100.00% 288 263 386 341 321 380

Total 1,979 ADA Website Lawsuits Filed By 137 Plaintiffs

24 Plaintiffs Filed 51% of Total Lawsuits

113 Plaintiffs Collectively Filed 49% of Total Lawsuits

Highlighting the key contributors:

  • Leading the pack is Perla Mageno of Manning Law, APC, with a stunning 84 lawsuits, holding a 4.24% share of the total litigations.
  • A singular firm, Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC, has come to become the top filer of ADA lawsuits with plaintiffs such as Andrew Toro (75 lawsuits), Jenny Hwang (68 lawsuits), Luis Toro (56 lawsuits), and Lamar Brown (45 lawsuits), their combined efforts underscore the firm’s focused approach in this domain.
  • Not far behind, Daniel Lugo represented by Lee D. Sarkin was the named plaintiff in a significant 52 lawsuits, contributing 2.63% to the overall count.
  • In spite of recently being sanctioned in the SDNY, Stein Saks, PLLC, showcases its robust presence, with multiple plaintiffs reinforcing its commitment to ADA website litigation. Interestingly, Stein Saks, PLLC has been sued by a visual impaired plaintiff who alleges that their own website fails to meet accessibility standards.
  • It is reported that plaintiffs in NY filings routinely receive $500 per lawsuit. Plaintiffs in California state cases, under the Unruh act, are eligible to receive statutory compensation of $4000. Law firms often demand much larger sums for themselves. It is unclear how these plaintiff law firms are demanding thousands of dollars for several hours of work at best.

By the time we reach our 24th plaintiff on the list, Denise Crumwell of Gottlieb & Associates, with her 25 lawsuits, we’ve already surpassed the 50% lawsuit contribution from this select group.

The above analysis crystallizes a crucial point for businesses: it’s evident that a focused group of serial plaintiffs drive many of the ADA lawsuits. By closely examining the specific issues often raised by these frequent filers, businesses can make targeted improvements to their websites. In essence, understanding the concerns of these leading plaintiffs allows businesses to proactively address them and significantly lower the risk of legal challenges. Regulators, judiciary, and lawmakers can benefit from understanding the trends that are driving these lawsuits against businesses.

14 Law Firms Filed 90% of All ADA Website Lawsuits in the First Half of 2023

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was envisioned to champion accessibility and inclusivity for all. However, recent data from the first half of 2023 paints a concerning picture. Out of 39 law firms studied, a mere 14 are responsible for over 90% of all ADA lawsuits, with a staggering 1,788 lawsuits between them out of 1979 lawsuits.

Plaintiff Firm Name Jan to June Percentage January February March April May June
Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC 351 17.74% 27 52 68 94 58 52
Stein Saks, PLLC 270 13.64% 36 46 54 19 39 76
Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC 197 9.95% 20 0 51 44 28 54
Manning Law, APC 156 7.88% 22 12 19 36 31 36
Gottlieb & Associates 152 7.68% 26 30 16 27 27 26
Mizrahi Kroub LLP 128 6.47% 44 32 18 16 14 4
Law Office of Noor A. Saab 88 4.45% 6 3 28 24 9 18
Shaked Law Group, P.C. 83 4.19% 8 13 14 12 12 24
J. Courtney Cunningham, PLLC 78 3.94% 16 12 10 20 9 11
Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A. 74 3.74% 4 12 24 13 11 10
NYE Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP 70 3.54% 14 9 12 15 13 7
Lee D. Sarkin 52 2.63% 15 11 6 0 10 10
Mendez Law Offices, PLLC 50 2.53% 5 5 13 5 15 7
Carlson Brown Law 39 1.97% 0 8 10 0 4 17
14 Law Firms Filed 90% of Total ADA Lawsuits 1788 90.35% 243 245 343 325 280 352
25 Law Firms Collectively Filed 9.65% Lawsuits 191 9.65% 45 18 43 16 41 28
Total ADA Lawsuits Filed by 39 Law Firms 1,979 100.00% 288 263 386 341 321 380

1,979 ADA Website Lawsuits Filed By 39 Law Firms

90% of Total Lawsuits Filed by 14 Law Firms

10% of Total Lawsuits Collectively Filed by 25 Law Firms

Highlighting the key points:

A significant concentration of ADA lawsuits has been noted, with just 14 law firms accounting for an overwhelming 90.35% of all filings. In figures, this translates to a substantial 1,788 cases in the span of six months.

Top Five Standout Law Firms by Volume:

  • Mars Khaimov Law, PLLC: Led the pack with 351 cases. Of note, April saw their highest activity with 94 case filings
  • Stein Saks, PLLC: Recorded 270 cases. June was their most active month, showing a surge with 76 filings
  • Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC: Filed 197 cases. March was a highlight with 51 cases, particularly when contrasted against their zero filings in February
  • Manning Law, APC: Consistently filed across months, peaking in April with 36 of their 156 total cases
  • Gottlieb & Associates: With 152 cases, their filings were distributed fairly evenly, ensuring a steady presence

Monthly Analysis:

Of all the months, June stood out with the highest case filings. A combined effort from these 14 firms resulted in 352 cases for the month.

A unique trend was observed with Carlson Brown Law. Despite no lawsuits filed in January and April, they made a significant jump to 17 cases by June, indicating a dynamic shift in their approach or strategy.

Additionally, these figures only reflect the lawsuits that made it to the courts. They don’t account for the countless demand letters or the many agreements settled outside the courtroom. This indicates that businesses might be under even more pressure than the numbers suggest.

In conclusion, such numbers raise questions about the real motivations behind these lawsuits. The ADA was designed to enhance accessibility, but it appears some law firms, in partnership with their stable of serial plaintiffs, might be taking advantage of the law mainly for financial benefits rather than genuine advocacy for accessibility and inclusivity.

Industry Segment Analysis of ADA Lawsuits (January to June 2023)

As we dissect the industries grappling with ADA lawsuits, it becomes clear that many sectors, despite their best intentions, face challenges in ensuring ADA compliance. It’s especially pressing when one considers that several small businesses, notably in the restaurant sector in California, are helmed by individuals of color or those for whom English is a second language. They trust their online tools to be compliant, but often, website platforms or third-party widgets can lead them astray.

Industry Category Jan to Aug Percentage January February March April May June
Lifestyle, Fashion, Clothing & Apparel 554 27.99% 56 69 140 94 79 116
Restaurant, Food, Drinks & Beverages 473 23.90% 64 59 78 85 98 89
Medical, Health, Fitness & Sports Accessories 163 8.24% 39 28 24 24 23 25
Furniture, Lighting, Home Decor & Kitchen Accessories 153 7.73% 29 39 33 18 20 14
Travel, Hotels & Hospitality 144 7.28% 29 23 22 17 26 27
Beauty, Skin & Body Care 106 5.36% 9 7 27 25 17 21
Toys, Games, Gifts & Flower Shops 80 4.04% 19 14 21 9 9 8
Retail & Consumer Goods 80 4.04% 8 7 0 13 16 36
Educational, Media, Magazines & Kids Accessories 50 2.53% 18 12 12 1 7 0
Computer, Mobile & Electronic Accessories 44 2.22% 4 0 10 9 9 12
Home, Kitchen Appliances & Accessories 39 1.97% 5 0 3 15 8 8
Automobiles , Car Parts, Tools & Accessories 25 1.26% 0 0 6 9 1 9
Art & Accessories 24 1.21% 2 0 5 9 5 3
Entertainment, Musical Instruments & Accessories 21 1.06% 4 0 3 9 0 5
Pet Care & Accessories 15 0.76% 2 0 2 4 1 6
Equipment, Tools & Accessories 5 0.25% 0 5 0 0 0 0
Property, Real Estates & Apartments 3 0.15% 0 0 0 0 2 1
Total 1979 100.00% 288 263 386 341 321 380

1. Key Findings

  • Lifestyle, Fashion, Clothing & Apparel: At the top of the list, this sector faced a significant 554 lawsuits, making up 27.99% of the total
  • Restaurant, Food, Drinks & Beverages: A close second, this industry grappled with 473 lawsuits, accounting for 23.90% primarily in California
  • Medical, Health, Fitness & Sports Accessories: With 163 lawsuits, this segment comprised 8.24% of the total legal actions
  • Furniture, Lighting, Home Decor & Kitchen Accessories: Encountering 153 lawsuits, they represent 7.73% of the total
  • Travel, Hotels & Hospitality: With 144 lawsuits, this industry holds 7.28% of the pie

2. Implications

  • A Trust Betrayed by Tech: Businesses, in their quest to provide online services, trust website platforms and widgets to be compliant. However, unintentional lapses by these unreliable tools can result in websites not being fully accessible.
  • Challenges for Small Businesses: The food and beverage industry, predominantly run by small-scale entrepreneurs, often of diverse backgrounds, find themselves most vulnerable. They are less equipped to deal with costly litigation or the intricate maze of ensuring digital compliance.

3. Recommendations

  • Seek Third-Party Expertise: For industries most at risk, regular reviews by external experts like EcomBack can pinpoint potential digital and website accessibility pitfalls.
  • Promote Awareness: Tailored workshops and resources for small businesses and non-native English speakers by Chambers of Commerce and other small business associations can simplify the understanding of website ADA requirements.
  • Engage with Platform Providers: Open dialogues with website providers can prompt them to incorporate built-in accessibility compliant features.  Entrepreneurs must voice their requirements to third-party developers and platforms.
  • Leverage Expert Services: EcomBack, a court-approved remediation service provider and a proud member of both W3C and the International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP), offers affordable website remediation solutions. Initiating with a FREE website audit, our comprehensive services extend to include staff training, ensuring a holistic approach to ADA compliance.


The numbers highlight the industries most susceptible, but the real story lies in addressing the underlying challenges they face. True inclusivity in the digital world doesn’t rest merely on decreasing lawsuits but on cultivating an environment where businesses, big or small, have the tools and knowledge to be genuinely compliant. EcomBack stands as a partner in this endeavor, ensuring that websites not only meet legal requirements but also truly welcome everyone.

22% of Websites Sued have Accessibility Widget Installed

The digital landscape has seen a rising trend of accessibility widgets or overlay tools designed to enhance website accessibility.

The idea of these widgets is simple: by embedding a snippet of code into a site, these overlay tools can remedy alleged accessibility issues automatically.
However, our findings reveal that this might be a misconception.

Comparison of the Plantico website's accessibility with and without the use of the accessibility widget on a laptop.

Monthly ADA Lawsuits Against Websites with an Overlay Widget Installed

In 2023, the number of Overlay Widget sites facing a lawsuit is shown in blue bars. Further details are provided below.

Number of lawsuits each month against websites with an overlay installed: January 89, February 78, March 95, April 90, May 71, and June 74.

Top 5 Accessibility Widgets were present on 21% of websites that received a cumulative total of 421 lawsuits out of 1979 filed during the first 6 months of 2023.

  • accessiBe: This widget was present on 192 websites that received a lawsuit, equivalent to 9.70% of all ADA lawsuits in the studied period, and 38.63% of cases from websites with widgets.
  • UserWay: This widget was present on 142 websites that received a lawsuit, accounting for 7.18% of all ADA lawsuits, cumulatively constituting 67.20% of widget-related cases.
  • AudioEye: This widget was present on 35 websites that received a lawsuit, corresponding to 1.77% of ADA lawsuits, culminating in 74.25% of the cumulative widget-related cases.
  • Accessibly: This widget was present on 34 websites that received a lawsuit, which is 1.72% of all ADA lawsuits, accumulating to 81.09% in the context of widget-related cases.
  • EqualWeb: This widget was present on 18 websites that received a lawsuit, making up 0.91% of all ADA lawsuits, and bringing the cumulative percentage of widget cases to 84.71%.
  • Widgets 6 to 10: These widgets, though they have lower individual case numbers, collectively represent significant percentages. For example, eSSENTIAL Accessibility was on 12 websites that received lawsuits, making up 0.61% of ADA lawsuits and contributing to a cumulative widget case percentage of 87.12%. CodeInspire, Pojo, and Accessibility Enabler were each installed on websites with 10 lawsuits, constituting 0.51% of ADA lawsuits each. Their respective cumulative percentages for widget cases were 89.13%, 91.15%, and 93.16%. AccessibilitySpark was found on 8 websites that received a lawsuit, accounting for 0.40% of the ADA lawsuits & culminating in a cumulative widget case percentage of 94.77%.

The Underlying Issue

The problem here is twofold. First, while these tools might provide some degree of accessibility improvement, they don’t address the root issue – the website’s underlying code. They also do not address content improvements. True accessibility compliance goes beyond surface-level adjustments and requires thorough fixes at the code level and remediation of content. This is precisely where EcomBack excels.

Second, the majority of businesses rely on these widgets thinking they are fully protected from ADA litigation with minimal effort and cost. Sadly, the numbers show a different story. The deeper concern is that while these numbers provide a snapshot, they indicate a broader trend: widgets, though seen as instant solutions, might not be the protective shields many businesses believe them to be.

In presenting this information it is crucial to note that our intention is not to cast a negative light on the providers of these accessibility widgets but rather to provide an objective analysis based on the available data. The presence of a widget in a lawsuit does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the widget itself but could be due to various factors including incorrect implementation or other issues unrelated to the widget’s functionality.

Websites built on the following platforms were subject to litigation

When evaluating the landscape of ADA lawsuits related to website accessibility, the underlying platforms of these websites emerged as an area of significant interest. With the rise of numerous content management systems (CMS) and e-commerce platforms, businesses often choose based on ease of use, scalability, and features. However, accessibility can often be an overlooked facet in this decision-making process.


The choice of a website platform is crucial not just for business operations but also for ensuring accessibility. This data suggests that no platform is immune to potential ADA-related pitfalls. It underscores the need for businesses to take proactive measures, focusing on true website accessibility in developing their themes and choosing third-party apps for functionality. Businesses need to be better educated in what it takes to promote both inclusivity and mitigate the risk of legal challenges, rather than solely on operational functionality.

In presenting this information it is crucial to note that our intention is not to cast a negative light on the providers of these platforms but rather to provide an objective analysis based on the available data. The use of a platform does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the platform itself but could be due to various factors including incorrect implementation or other issues unrelated to the platform’s functionality.

EcomBack's Comprehensive Approach to Accessibility

Prioritizing genuine, in-depth website remediation, EcomBack's methodology stands out in the industry.

As court-approved remediation service providers and members of the top accessibility organizations, EcomBack offers a holistic approach.

From free initial website audits, full remediation, staff training and periodic checks, businesses are guided through every step of their accessibility journey.

Women reading ADA report booklets, desktop displaying ecomback-generated ADA report


Businesses need to delve deeper than surface-level solutions. Genuine website accessibility requires comprehensive efforts, addressing issues at their root, primarily at the code level. Widgets and tools can assist, but they cannot replace the need for genuine remediation. EcomBack’s suite of services, including free website audits, staff training, and hands-on remediation, presents an optimal solution for businesses aiming for genuine, lasting compliance.

This report provides actionable insights for businesses across industries, equipping them with the knowledge and resources to navigate the complex realm of website accessibility effectively.

At EcomBack, we understand that genuine digital accessibility isn’t achieved through shortcuts or superficial fixes.

Our commitment is to provide comprehensive and lasting solutions that truly empower every user, regardless of their abilities.

Why Choose EcomBack?

Holistic Remediation of Code and Content: We believe in in-depth, authentic website remediation for code and content. Rather than just patching up issues, we address them at their core, ensuring that your website is fixed at the code level and is genuinely accessible to all. We review content of a website (images, tables, PDFs, videos, etc) and help fix these issues, while offering training for businesses to continually follow best practices on a going-forward basis.

Industry Recognition: Prioritizing genuine, in-depth website remediation, EcomBack’s methodology stands out in the industry. Our credibility is evident as we are court-approved remediation service providers. Furthermore, our memberships with both W3C and the International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) demonstrate our commitment and expertise in the field. Some of the leading defense firms count on us to provide analysis and remediation for clients based on our thorough and neutral process.

FREE Initial Audit: To kickstart the journey towards accessibility, we offer a FREE website audit and consultation call. This detailed review helps in understanding your website’s current accessibility landscape and the areas that need attention.

Affordable and Continuous Compliance: We don’t stop at just fixing the current issues. Our affordable remediation services are designed to ensure that you not only achieve compliance but also maintain it in the long run.

Regular Audits: To ensure that your website remains on the right track, we offer plans for monthly, quarterly, bi-annual, and annual website audits and maintainence. This allows us to address any new issues promptly and ensure that the site remains ADA-compliant.

Staff Training: We emphasize the importance of having an informed and educated team. Our training modules ensure that you or your staff is well-equipped to understand and implement accessibility best practices.

Usability Testing by Certified Disabled Testers: True accessibility is best evaluated by those who use assistive technologies daily. Our team includes disabled staff members specially trained for website usability testing. Their insights bring invaluable real-world perspectives, ensuring that your site isn’t just technically compliant but also truly user-friendly.

By partnering with EcomBack, you're not just ticking off a compliance checklist; you're embracing a truly inclusive digital experience for all users.

Industry News

Plaintiff Withdraws from SCOTUS Lawsuit Over Lawyer's Misconduct

In a surprising turn of events, Deborah Laufer, the plaintiff in the Acheson v. Laufer case currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), has opted to withdraw her lawsuit. Simultaneously, she formally requested that SCOTUS dismiss the ongoing review of the case due to its lack of relevance.

This unexpected decision follows recent developments where Ms. Laufer not only discontinued her specific case but also decided to dismiss all her other pending ADA Title III lawsuits, asserting that her current case has lost its significance. In her submission to SCOTUS, she has highlighted that her case’s dismissal is warranted. Nonetheless, the defendant, Acheson, has expressed intent to challenge this course of action.

Oral arguments were heard by the court in early October 2023. Ironically, a recent audit of the Supreme Court’s website showed that it too is partially inaccessible.

Ms. Laufer’s strategy may have been influenced by the suspension of her previous attorney, Tristan Gillespie, owing to unethical conduct. The suspension stemmed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Concerned that Gillespie’s conduct could overshadow her ADA claims and her commitment to advocating for individuals with disabilities, she made the decision to conclude all her ongoing cases.

The suspension of Gillespie has cast a spotlight on issues related to his management of ADA Title III “tester” litigation. During his tenure at the Thomas Bacon P.A. firm, he filed a considerable number of ADA Title III lawsuits on behalf of Ms. Laufer and Saim Sarwar with disabilities. Remarkably, this transpired while he was employed full-time as an Assistant District Attorney in Fulton County, Georgia. The Bacon Firm lodged over 600 lawsuits on behalf of Ms. Laufer and nearly 200 on behalf of Saim Sarwar. Intriguingly, it was Thomas Bacon from the same firm who represented Ms. Laufer in the SCOTUS case until her recent request for dismissal.

The findings resulting from Gillespie’s disciplinary proceedings underscore several problematic actions. Gillespie was found to have inflated his reported hours in numerous fee petitions, failed to engage in discussions about settlement terms with his clients (preferring instead to rely on an investigator/expert named Daniel Pezza), dismissed over 100 ADA lawsuits prior to the disciplinary hearing without consulting the plaintiffs, and made payments to Pezza, who incidentally is the father of Ms. Laufer’s grandchild. These actions have raised concerns regarding potential unethical fee-sharing. Despite the court’s characterization of this arrangement as concerning, no definitive conclusion has been reached about whether Ms. Laufer received financial compensation from Pezza, owing to the late revelation of their relationship.

The comprehensive report detailing Gillespie’s disciplinary case holds significance for attorneys who specialize in representing ADA Title III serial plaintiffs. This report delineates practices that should be avoided, including the insistence on attorney fees within settlement agreements that exceed the actual fees incurred. Gillespie attempted to justify these inflated fee demands as accounting for future compliance monitoring expenses; however, the court did not find this argument persuasive.

The pending case before SCOTUS is shrouded in uncertainty. Although the ordinary outcome would involve dismissing a moot case, the unique circumstances surrounding Ms. Laufer’s comprehensive dismissal and the contrasting viewpoints among the Courts of Appeals concerning the standing of ADA Title III “testers” in asserting claims offer compelling grounds for SCOTUS to proceed with its review.

Proposed ADA Regulations for State and Local Government Websites

About a year after the DOJ’s announcement to create website accessibility regulations for state and local governments under ADA Title II, the DOJ has now published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on August 4, 2023.

Summary of Key Points from the NPRM:

Scope of Coverage: The NPRM aims to extend website accessibility regulations to state and local governments, encompassing departments, agencies, and entities associated with them.

Digital Properties Inclusion: The NPRM covers content on websites, mobile apps, and electronic documents posted there, focusing on conveying information, sensory experiences, and conventional files.

Accessibility Standards: Compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, anc 2.2 Levels A and AA, is required for covered websites and mobile apps.

Compliance Timeline: Public entities with a population of 50,000+ must comply within two years of the final rule’s publication. Smaller entities and special district governments have up to three years.

Exceptions: Certain exceptions apply, including instances of fundamental alteration, undue burden, archived content, third-party content, linked third-party content, and certain password-protected files.

Alternatives for Accessibility: Public entities can use “conforming alternate versions” or provide “equivalent facilitation” to ensure accessibility. Public comments were due by October 3, 2023.

Attorneys Overlook Their Own Rules on Accessibility Advocacy

EcomBack’s research has uncovered a noticeable lapse in the compliance of AB 2917, a law which went into effect in January 2023. This law clearly outlines that attorneys are required to promptly register any demand letters and accessibility complaints with the California Commission on Disability Access (CCDA) within a five-day period.

Yet, our findings show that many attorneys, the very individuals who should be at the forefront of championing this regulation, have largely ignored it. Since the beginning of 2023, not a single demand letter has been registered with the CCDA. By the time July rolled around, only 158 out of a total of 490 complaints had been reported.

What’s even more perplexing is that some of these attorneys, who zealously challenge businesses over accessibility standards, operate websites that themselves fall short of these benchmarks.

This glaring oversight suggests a double standard. While they are quick to hold businesses to account, they appear to be neglecting their own responsibilities, bringing into question the sincerity of their commitment to disability rights advocacy.

Read AB 2917 here

If your business has received a demand letter or lawsuit in 2023 for website accessibility email the CCDA and contact the State Bar to ensure that the complaint was registered with them as per AB 2917. You may want to email Assembly member Mike Fong to let his office know as well.


Accessibility isn’t just about compliance; it’s a commitment to inclusivity, user experience, and protecting your business reputation. With the rising tide of ADA website lawsuits, any website classified as a “public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA is potentially at risk.

A genuinely accessible website not only shields you from potential legal challenges but also enhances usability, fosters customer loyalty, and boosts sales. Adhering to standards like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is not just a legal requirement, but also an ethical and strategic business decision.

However, many website owners face challenges in ensuring accessibility due to a knowledge or resource gap. This is where expert’s intervention like EcomBack can be game-changing.

At EcomBack – We fix websites manually at the code level using the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to make them accessible and comply with the ADA, without relying on overlay widgets or plug-ins. We are court-approved remediation service provider and a proud member of both the W3C and the International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP). We offer a comprehensive suite of services, from detailed audits and remediation to continuous monitoring, ensuring ongoing compliance with the ADA. Our team of experts are adept at pinpointing and resolving accessibility challenges, creating a universally navigable online environment for all.

EcomBack has provided research and resources for the making of “Blind Sighted” a new documentary film, which exposes the underbelly of the ADA website litigation cottage industry. The film is expected to be completed soon.

Start with our no-obligation website accessibility audit. You’ll receive an in-depth analysis of existing barriers along with clear, actionable solutions.
Schedule Your FREE Audit Today!

Through our remediation services, we tailor your website to meet ADA and WCAG 2.2 AA guidelines. Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of the digital space, our continuous monitoring service ensures your site remains compliant, even post updates.

Disclaimer: The contents of this report are provided for informational purposes only. The data and insights presented are based on our observations and interpretations, and while we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information. For detailed terms and conditions regarding our content, please refer to our Website Content Disclaimer.