ADA Risk for Auto Dealerships: Inventory Search Failures

ADA risk for auto dealerships: Inventory search failures drive lawsuits

The pattern is consistent. A plaintiff who is blind or visually impaired visits a dealership website. They try to browse inventory using screen reader software. They can't. Within weeks, the dealership gets sued.

Joel Price filed suit against Hertz Car Sales in January 2019. His complaint said the website at www.hertzcarsales.com/jacksonville.htm didn't work with his screen reader. He couldn't access content about cars for sale .

Two weeks later, Price sued Reed Motors, operator of Reed Nissan in Florida. Same problem. He couldn't get information about automobiles for sale or apply for financing online .

In August 2019, Andres Gomez sued Kendall Toyota in Miami. His complaint alleged the website at www.kendalltoyota.com didn't integrate with his software. There was no way for visually impaired people to access the site .

These are not isolated cases. Website accessibility lawsuits against auto dealerships have been filed consistently since at least 2018. The claims almost always center on the same thing: inventory search failures.

What inventory search failures look like

A car dealership website's primary function is letting people find vehicles to buy. That means search filters, vehicle listings, and vehicle detail pages. For a blind user using screen reader software, each of these creates potential barriers.

Screen readers work by reading the underlying code. If a search button is coded as an image with no alternative text, the screen reader says "image" and nothing else. The user doesn't know it's a button or what it does.

If year, make, and model filters are coded as dropdowns that don't announce themselves properly, the user can't select them. If vehicle cards on a search results page don't have proper headings, the user hears a wall of text with no way to skip from car to car.

If a "view details" link just says "click here" instead of "view details for 2022 Toyota Camry," the user has no context. They have to listen to every link on the page to guess which one goes to which car.

The Gomez complaint against Kendall Toyota alleged exactly this: the website did not integrate with his software. There was no function to permit access for visually impaired people .

Price's complaint against Reed Nissan said he couldn't obtain meaningful information about automobiles for sale or apply for financing online . Those are the core functions of a dealership website.

Why inventory search matters more than other pages

Most dealership websites have pages about service departments, financing, and contact information. Those matter. But inventory search is the primary reason people visit.

According to Dealer.com, consumers crave a smoother online shopping journey when looking for vehicles online. Their 2024 website enhancements focused on simplifying the search results page for easier vehicle discovery .

If a blind user can't search inventory, they can't comparison shop. They can't check prices before visiting. They can't see if a dealer has the trim level they want. They're excluded from the research phase that 70% of car buyers do on mobile before ever stepping onto a lot .

The Reed Nissan complaint listed exactly what the plaintiff couldn't do: learn about inventory of new and used automobiles, apply for an automobile loan and become pre-approved prior to coming to the dealership, schedule an online chat about cars for sale, and schedule service or repair .

That's a complete list of the ways customers interact with dealerships online. If those functions aren't accessible, the dealership is effectively closed to disabled customers.

The legal theory that puts dealers at risk

The ADA applies to places of public accommodation. For years, businesses argued websites weren't places. Courts have mostly rejected that.

The key case is Robles v. Domino's Pizza from 2019. The Ninth Circuit held that because the Domino's website and app facilitated access to goods and services at physical restaurants, they had to be accessible. The connection between the website and the physical location created the obligation .

The same logic applies to dealerships. Your website lets people browse inventory, get pre-approved, and schedule test drives. All of those lead to the physical lot. The nexus is clear.

The Supreme Court declined to review Domino's, leaving it as controlling law in the Ninth Circuit. California dealers are squarely covered. Dealers elsewhere face the same argument, even if their circuit hasn't ruled.

The standing question and why it probably won't save you

Dealers sometimes object that plaintiffs never intended to actually buy a car. They're just testing websites to file lawsuits.

California's Supreme Court addressed this in White v. Square, Inc. in 2019. The court held that individuals have standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act when they visit a website, encounter barriers, and intend to use the services. They don't have to complete a transaction or make a futile gesture .

The court said requiring someone to complete a transaction after encountering discrimination would be pointless. If the site doesn't work, they can't complete it anyway.

This matters because most ADA website lawsuits also include state law claims. California's Unruh Act provides statutory damages of at least $4,000 per violation. New York has similar laws. Plaintiffs don't need to prove they would have bought a car. They only need to prove they tried to use the site and couldn't.

What dealerships get sued for specifically

The complaints filed against auto dealers list specific technical failures.

The Hertz lawsuit alleged much of the content couldn't be recognized by screen reader software . That's a catch-all for multiple problems: missing alt text, improper headings, unlabeled form fields.

The Reed Nissan complaint said the website wasn't designed with accessibility in mind, didn't have the universal disabled logo or sign of website accessibility, and wasn't designed with universal design principles .

The Kendall Toyota complaint alleged the website didn't integrate with the plaintiff's software and had no function to permit access for visually impaired people .

These are not subtle problems. They're fundamental failures to build sites that work with assistive technology.

The scale of the problem

A 2025 analysis cited in the DealerRefresh forum found that 98% of U.S.-based web pages are not legally accessible to people with disabilities. The analysis covered over 10 million web pages and found an average of 56.8 accessibility errors per page .

For dealerships, the numbers are probably similar. Most dealer websites are built on platforms from vendors like Dealer.com, CDK Global, or DealerOn. Those vendors have made efforts toward accessibility, but dealerships add their own content. Inventory listings, specials, blog posts, and service coupons all get added daily. Each addition can introduce errors .

Tina Cuatto from DealerOn explained the problem in a video: dealerships are updating inventory, specials, content, and blog posts on a near daily basis, making it extremely difficult to stay ahead of the game .

The platform might be compliant out of the box. The content the dealership adds might not be.

One dealership's experience with a lawsuit

Brian Pasch, an automotive technology consultant, wrote in 2018 about a dealer client who called him. The client had two dealerships that received lawsuits from an attorney representing a local car shopper. The lawsuits claimed the websites failed to support features for consumers with disabilities .

The excerpts Pasch shared match the pattern. The plaintiff encountered a website not designed with accessibility in mind. The sites lacked universal design. There was no auxiliary aid or service to help visually impaired customers access inventory, get pre-approved, or schedule service .

Pasch's advice was simple: check with your website company today. Get a letter stating whether your site is ADA compliant. That step could save legal headaches and financial settlements .

The vendor responsibility problem

If a dealership gets sued over website accessibility, who's responsible? The dealership, almost certainly.

A DealerRefresh forum post from March 2025 asked exactly this question. If an OEM forces the dealership to choose from six vendors, none of whom build ADA-compliant websites, but the vendors claim their sites are compliant when they're not, who is responsible?

The answer from Gregg, the forum member: the dealership. The legal burden falls on the business even if an OEM or third-party vendor is involved .

This matters because many dealerships use vendor platforms. They assume if the vendor says it's compliant, they're protected. That's not how the law works. The dealership is the one providing the service to the public. The dealership gets sued.

What compliance costs and what violations cost

Fines for accessibility violations can reach $5,000 per individual issue. Lawsuits can result in damages of $100,000 or more. Businesses may face repeated fines and lawsuits until sites are brought into compliance .

Rebuilding a website to be ADA compliant costs money. A small site can run $5,000 or more . That's less than one lawsuit settlement.

The forum post made the math explicit: fines and lawsuits can run $100,000 or more, and you can get sued over and over until you fix the site .

The overlay problem

Some vendors push accessibility overlays or plugins as solutions. DealerOn, for example, partnered with accessiBe to offer an automated solution that uses AI to scan and fix problems .

Overlays have problems.

The DealerRefresh forum post laid them out. Overlays give a false sense of security. They hide bad code behind more code rather than fixing it. They require user activation, which means you're not treating people with disabilities the same as people without them. They add friction and slow down sites. They're third-party scripts, so if the overlay vendor's site is slow or offline, your site breaks .

The comment section on DealerOn's own blog post noted that accessiBe is not actually integrated with WAVE, the accessibility testing tool. The WAVE popup warns users that accessiBe modifies content while WAVE is running, which interferes with WAVE's detection .

Overlays can create as many problems as they solve.

The business case beyond lawsuits

There are over 61 million adults with disabilities in the U.S., about 26% of the adult population, or 1 in 4 adults . That's a lot of potential customers.

If your site isn't accessible, you're not just risking lawsuits. You're losing business from people who literally can't use your site.

Accessible sites also tend to rank higher in search. They're easier for Google to crawl and provide better user experience, which Google values .

What dealers should do now

Start with an audit. DealerOn recommended using tools like WAVE to check for errors. Put your URL in, and it shows how many errors and alerts it finds. Errors need immediate attention because they're very likely causing customers problems .

Get a letter from your website vendor. Brian Pasch's advice from 2018 still holds. Ask specifically whether your site is ADA compliant and get it in writing. If they won't give it, that's information .

Don't assume the vendor's compliance is your compliance. The platform might be compliant, but your content might not be. Inventory listings you add, specials you post, blog articles you write all need to be accessible.

Test with real assistive technology. Automated tools find about 30% of issues. They can't tell you if a screen reader user can actually navigate your site. Download NVDA for Windows or turn on VoiceOver on a Mac and try to use your own site without looking at the screen.

Fix inventory search first. That's what plaintiffs try to use and what customers need most. Make sure search filters work with keyboard navigation. Make sure vehicle cards have proper headings. Make sure "view details" links actually describe the vehicle.

Train your people. If your staff doesn't know how to write alt text for vehicle photos or how to structure content, you'll keep creating problems. One day of training costs less than one hour of a lawyer's time.

The bottom line

Joel Price sued Hertz in January 2019. He sued Reed Nissan two weeks later. Andres Gomez sued Kendall Toyota in August 2019. These cases keep coming.

The complaints are consistent. Screen readers don't work. Inventory can't be browsed. Financing applications can't be submitted. Service can't be scheduled.

The legal theory is settled in the Ninth Circuit and persuasive elsewhere. If your website connects to your physical dealership, it needs to be accessible.

The business case is simple. 61 million adults with disabilities in the U.S. 98% of web pages inaccessible. 56.8 errors per page average.

Fines up to $5,000 per issue. Lawsuits over $100,000. Rebuilding a site for $5,000 starts to look like a bargain.

Check with your vendor. Audit your site. Fix inventory search first. Train your people. Or wait for the lawsuit. Those are the options.