A recent federal court decision provides an important lesson for businesses facing website accessibility lawsuits: a plaintiff must do more than make general allegations about an inaccessible website. The plaintiff must also establish standing with specific, credible evidence.
In Martinez v. Tusk, Ltd., Case No. 24-CV-707, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Tusk and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Tusk was represented by attorney David Stein of Stein & Nieporent LLP. Plaintiff Silvia Martinez was represented by Mark Rozenberg, Esq. of Stein Saks, PLLC. EcomBack supported the client and its legal team by auditing the website, reviewing accessibility concerns, and providing technical information that helped counsel understand and respond to the allegations.
Although every case depends on its own facts, this outcome demonstrates why businesses should combine experienced legal representation with qualified digital accessibility support.
What Was the Lawsuit About?
The plaintiff, Silvia Martinez, is visually impaired and uses JAWS screen-reading software. She alleged that accessibility barriers on Tusk.com prevented her from completing the purchase of a leather satchel.
Her complaint asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
Tusk disputed the allegations and moved for summary judgment. Among other arguments, the company maintained that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing and had not presented sufficient evidence of a genuine intent to return to the website.
Why Did the Court Dismiss the Case?
The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established the standing required to maintain her claims.
For an ADA plaintiff seeking injunctive relief, it is not enough to allege a past problem. The plaintiff must establish a real and immediate threat of future harm, including a credible intention to return to the business or website.
The court noted several weaknesses in the evidence.
The plaintiff had visited the website only twice. She had not returned after January 2024, and she acknowledged that she no longer needed to purchase the satchel because a friend had given her a similar product.
The court also found her statements about returning to the website too vague. A general assertion that someone may visit a website again at an unspecified future time is not always sufficient to establish an imminent future injury.
In addition, the plaintiff’s testimony about the alleged accessibility problem was unclear. She was able to locate the product and add it to her cart, but she could not explain specifically why she was unable to complete checkout. She testified that she assumed an accessibility barrier caused the problem.
Based on the absence of sufficient evidence showing a concrete injury and genuine intent to return, the court granted Tusk’s summary judgment motion. The ADA and New York City Human Rights Law claims were dismissed for lack of standing, and the court directed the clerk to enter judgment for Tusk and close the case.
The Court Did Not Decide the Accessibility Merits
This distinction is important.
The court dismissed the case based on standing and therefore did not need to determine whether Tusk.com contained accessibility barriers or whether the website complied with a particular accessibility standard.
Businesses should not interpret the ruling as permission to ignore accessibility. A dismissal based on standing does not mean that website accessibility is optional, nor does it prevent a different plaintiff from bringing a future claim under different circumstances.
Instead, the decision highlights the importance of both legal defenses and proactive accessibility practices.
How EcomBack Supported the Client and Legal Team
When a business receives an accessibility demand letter or lawsuit, its attorney must evaluate legal issues such as standing, jurisdiction, causation, and available defenses. At the same time, the attorney may need technical information about the website and the alleged barriers.
EcomBack worked with the client by reviewing the website, conducting an accessibility audit, and providing useful technical information for the client and counsel.
This type of collaboration helps attorneys distinguish between verified accessibility issues, unsupported allegations, third-party limitations, and matters that require remediation. It can also help businesses document the steps they are taking to improve accessibility.
EcomBack does not provide legal advice or replace legal counsel. Our role is to provide accessibility expertise, testing, documentation, remediation guidance, and technical support that a business and its attorney can use when responding to a claim.
What Other Businesses Can Learn
The first lesson is that receiving an ADA lawsuit does not automatically mean the plaintiff will prevail. Standing, evidence, intent to return, and the specific facts surrounding the alleged experience all matter.
The second lesson is that businesses should not wait for litigation before addressing accessibility. Regular audits, code-level remediation, screen-reader testing, keyboard testing, and ongoing monitoring can improve the experience for users with disabilities while creating valuable records of the company’s efforts.
The third lesson is that documentation matters. Audit reports, remediation records, testing results, accessibility statements, Statements of Conformance, and communications with third-party providers may help demonstrate a structured and good-faith accessibility program.
Finally, businesses should coordinate their technical accessibility team with experienced legal counsel. Attorneys manage the legal defense, while accessibility professionals can provide the technical evidence and website analysis needed to support informed decisions.
How EcomBack Can Help
EcomBack helps businesses identify, address, and monitor website accessibility issues through:
- Manual accessibility audits
- WCAG 2.2 Level AA remediation support
- Screen-reader and keyboard testing
- Testing by users with disabilities
- Accessibility documentation and reporting
- Ongoing audit and monitoring plans
- Technical coordination with legal counsel
No accessibility provider can guarantee that a business will never receive a demand letter or lawsuit. However, proactive remediation, reliable documentation, ongoing testing, and coordinated expert support can put a business in a much stronger position.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. EcomBack is not a law firm. Businesses should consult qualified legal counsel regarding ADA website accessibility claims and legal obligations.
