The Big Picture of Website Accessibility Litigation
We all know it - the digital world has rapidly grown to become a core part of everyday life. Websites and mobile apps serve as conduits for commerce, education, entertainment, and government services.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that digital access is equal for everyone. In response to the most egregious web accessibility cases, disability‑rights organizations and individuals have turned to legal strategies to press website operators for greater accessibility. The legal basis often includes the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for federal agencies, and state laws such as California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
As a result, web accessibility lawsuits have surged in recent years. According to this source, the number of ADA‑based website/app lawsuits jumped from 814 in 2017 to 2,258 in 2018, and you can bet that there are many more now at the end of 2025. Several of these suits have resulted in landmark settlements. What follows are five of the largest such settlements (or agreements) and what they teach about digital inclusion risk and compliance.
~$100,000 – HRB Digital LLC / HRB Tax Group, Inc.
The NFB sued HRB Digital and HRB Tax Group (H&R Block) in 2014 for failing to provide accessible websites and mobile applications in violation of the ADA (Title III). In total, H&R Block paid US $100,000 to plaintiffs and fees as a result of this decree. Justice.gov
Why this case matters: it set a key precedent that the justice department will enforce ADA accessibility law for websites and apps, requiring WCAG 2.0 AA compliance, ongoing testing, staff training, and oversight - signaling that public-facing digital services must be accessible to people with disabilities.
~$250,000 (Disclosure of Set‑Aside) – Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc.
In a case filed by Juan Carlos Gil (legally blind) against Winn‑Dixie in 2017, the issue was the inaccessibility of Winn‑Dixie’s website for screen‑reading software users. The District Court found that the website (which offered coupons, pharmacy refills, store locator) was heavily integrated with the physical stores and therefore constituted a “public accommodation”. The defendant had acknowledged that approximately US $250,000 was set aside to remediate the website. Faegre Drinker
This decision was later overturned on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit held in April 2021 that the website was not itself a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA and vacated the injunction. Consumer Finance Monitor
Why this case matters: It highlights how accessibility litigation is evolving. Even where a company concedes accessibility issues and earmarks remediation funds, appellate rulings may change the risk landscape. It also shows that the primary relief may come in injunctions and remediation rather than large monetary payouts.
~$755,000 – Netflix, Inc.
Streaming service Netflix settled a lawsuit with the NAD in 2012, where the NAD claimed Netflix failed to provide closed captioning to its streaming content, violating the ADA. Ars Technica
In the consent decree Netflix agreed to pay US $755,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs including monitoring the decree, and to provide closed captions on 100 % of its streaming content within two years (by 2014). MediaPost
Why this case matters: It expanded accessibility expectations beyond static websites and more traditional media to include digital streaming platforms. It shows that services delivering audio‑visual content online have legal exposure for accessibility failures.
~$1.575 Million – Harvard University (and Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
In 2015 the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) filed federal lawsuits against Harvard and MIT alleging that their online course materials (audio & video) lacked adequate captioning, in violation of ADA and Section 508. National Association of the Deaf
Harvard entered into a consent decree in November 2019, approved in February 2020, under which the university committed to caption all new audio/video content, deliver live‑event captioning, and submit monitoring reports every six months. The settlement required Harvard to pay attorneys’ fees of at least US $1,575,000. The Harvard Crimson
MIT reached a similar settlement in February 2020, also under the NAD’s leadership, requiring captioning of publicly posted content created or posted by MIT staff/faculty, student organizations, and live‑streamed events. National Association of the Deaf
Why these cases matter: It underlines that higher education institutions (which often publish large volumes of online audiovisual content) are subject to accessibility obligations. It links digital content (videos, lectures, MOOCs) to legal risk, beyond just website text.
$5.15 Million - Fashion Nova
The second largest on this list happened just this year, in July. Fashion Nova, an online women's clothing brand, focused a little to hard on suggestive poses for their models and not enough time on their website. Accessibility issues kept buyers with vision impairments from using screen readers, sparking a class action. claimdepot.com
Why this case matters: It's 2025. You would think that accessibility and the cost of non-compliance would be well known by big brands. This case is proof that isn't the case - and another reminder of the consequences.
$6 Million – Target Corporation
The largest of this list is the class‑action settlement between the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and Target Corporation. In August 2008 Target agreed to pay US $6 million to settle a claim by the NFB that Target’s website (Target.com) was inaccessible to blind users. Computerworld
The underlying litigation began in 2006 when the NFB alleged that Target’s site lacked alt‑text tags for images, was not navigable via keyboard, and therefore denied blind users meaningful access. Ars Technica
In the settlement Target not only committed to making its site accessible (working with the NFB over a period of years) but also established a fund for claims from class members. Access Press
Why this case matters: For one, it's huge - $6 million is an insane amount of money. It established (or at least reinforced) the idea that a retail website may be held to accessibility standards under the ADA (or parallel state laws), especially where the website is connected to physical store operations. It sent a strong signal to large businesses that digital access cannot be ignored. Plus, this happened in 2008 - the first (chronologically) on this list by far.
(Dis)Honorable Mention - $2 Million - Conduent State & Local Solutions
What happens when you charge the government US $66 million to create a website and then don't make it accessible? Well you might (should) get sued.
That's exactly what happened to Conduent State & Local Solutions, the company that was awarded the contract to make a Parks & Rec website for the State of California and didn't fulfill their promise to make the website usable by people who rely on screen readers. trelegal.com
While this case is technically fraud, and the settlement was to deal with that charge, it still belongs somewhere on this list.
Unfortunately, the consequence of this debacle doesn't seem to quite fit the action considering how ludicrous the contract cost was, so the 'why this case matters' for this one might have to be 'because justice isn't always fair'.
Last One, I Promise
I also wanted to quickly bring up Guillermo Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, mostly because it's ironic. Mr. Robles attempted to buy a pizza from Domino's and couldn't do so with a screen reader - a well-established trend for this list.
Although there isn't much information about the cost of the settlement besides a paltry $4000 payout to Mr. Robles, this case probably cost hundreds of thousands in legal fees, if not more, and damaged Domino's reputation. And that's important because it proves that nothing is too mundane to be ignored when it comes to accessibility, not even ordering a pizza. cbs.com
Key Lessons
Several themes emerge from these cases. First, digital access law has matured: websites and apps are increasingly treated as “public accommodations” under the ADA and similar laws. The Target case remains a landmark example.
Second, the range of defendant types is broad. Retailers, streaming services, educational institutions, tax‑prep companies—all have been the subject of lawsuits. The takeaway for any organization operating a website or mobile app is that accessibility obligations apply widely.
Third, settlements often combine monetary payment with remedial commitments. In each of the cases above offenders agreed not only to pay attorney fees or damages but also to implement accessibility fixes, assign responsibility internally, and establish ongoing monitoring/training programs.
Fourth, the standards invoked tend to refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (especially 2.0 or 2.1 level AA) and to operational commitments such as ongoing monitoring and third‑party content compliance. For example, Harvard’s decree required captioning of third‑party‑hosted videos and tracking of requests. National Association of the Deaf
Finally, the cost of non‑compliance goes beyond legal fees and settlements. Organizations face reputational damage, customer loss, and increased operational risk. Addressing accessibility proactively can save time, reduce risk, and build trust with a broader audience.
Looking Ahead
The digital‑accessibility landscape continues to evolve. Lawsuits remain frequent, and many jurisdictions bolster their enforcement regimes and guidelines. For example, although not detailed in the above list, other cases such as filings against retailers or service providers claim potential exposures in the millions of dollars.
The key for organizations is to treat accessibility not as a one‑time check‑box but as a continuous process: assess digital properties regularly, apply standards (WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 AA), ensure third‑party content is covered, provide training, and monitor outcomes. In that way the risk of harmful legal exposure diminishes.
You Deserve Better
The largest website‑accessibility settlements show that the digital domain is firmly under accessibility law. From the $6 million paid by Target to the $755,000 paid by Netflix, a consistent message emerges: digital inclusion matters, and organizations must act. Failing to do so invites legal and reputational consequences.
Get help with your website from someone that understands the importance of web accessibility. Contact us.