What Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Look for Before Filing

What plaintiffs’ attorneys look for before filing an ADA website lawsuit

A demand letter for website accessibility usually isn’t random. By the time a business owner receives one, someone has already spent time reviewing the site. Sometimes it’s a quick scan using automated software. Other times a tester manually navigates the pages with a screen reader or keyboard.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys who handle accessibility cases tend to follow a repeatable process. They don’t read the source code line by line. They look for patterns that show a site will be easy to challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The goal is simple: find barriers that can be reproduced and documented. If the problems appear across multiple pages, the case becomes easier to file and harder to dismiss.

What follows is a breakdown of the things attorneys typically check before a complaint is drafted.

First check: whether the business is covered by the ADA

The starting point is the type of business.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to “places of public accommodation.” That includes restaurants, hotels, retail stores, medical offices, banks, law firms, and dozens of other categories listed in the statute.

If a business sells to the public or provides services to the public, it’s usually considered covered.

Attorneys often look for:

• A physical location open to customers
• Online ordering or booking
• Customer account systems
• Online forms or appointment scheduling

Many lawsuits argue that the website is connected to the physical location. Courts have accepted this argument in several jurisdictions.

Some attorneys avoid businesses that are likely exempt or hard to classify. Small private clubs, membership organizations, or businesses that don’t sell directly to the public may be skipped.

Trade-off: the ADA doesn’t explicitly mention websites. Because of that, rulings vary by circuit. Some judges require a connection between the website and a physical location. Others don’t.

Even with that uncertainty, the volume of filings continues.

Automated accessibility scan

Most website lawsuits start with an automated scan.

Tools like WAVE, Axe, Lighthouse, and Siteimprove can detect common accessibility errors within seconds. They flag missing alt text, low color contrast, empty buttons, and other technical issues.

An attorney or tester will usually run a scan on several pages:

• the homepage
• a product page
• a checkout or booking page
• a contact form

If the tool reports dozens or hundreds of errors, the site becomes a candidate for a lawsuit.

Automated tools don’t catch everything. Most accessibility professionals estimate that scanners detect about 25 to 40 percent of accessibility problems.

But attorneys aren’t trying to perform a full audit. They just need visible evidence of barriers.

If a scan produces screenshots filled with red warning icons, that’s often enough to move to the next step.

Checking for missing alt text on images

One of the fastest things to check is image alt text.

Screen readers rely on alternative text to describe images to blind users. Without it, the user hears something like “image” or a file name such as “IMG_2034.jpg.”

Many websites still have large numbers of images without descriptions.

Common examples:

• product photos
• promotional banners
• social media icons
• navigation graphics

On some sites, entire menus are built with images instead of text.

A tester using a screen reader might encounter a navigation bar that sounds like this:

“image, image, image.”

That creates a clear barrier to navigation.

Attorneys like these cases because they’re easy to document. A screenshot of the code or accessibility report shows the missing attribute.

Forms that don’t work with screen readers

Forms are another area attorneys check early.

Contact forms, checkout pages, and appointment schedulers often fail basic accessibility tests.

Common issues include:

• input fields without labels
• placeholder text used instead of labels
• error messages that aren’t announced by screen readers
• CAPTCHA systems that block assistive technology

A blind user trying to schedule a dentist appointment might encounter a form where each field is simply announced as “edit text.”

No label. No instructions.

They can’t tell which field is for name, phone number, or date.

That’s the type of problem that ends up in complaints.

Keyboard navigation problems

Many accessibility testers navigate websites without using a mouse.

They rely on the keyboard — usually the Tab key — to move between links and buttons.

If a site traps the keyboard focus or skips important elements, the user can’t complete tasks.

Typical problems:

• dropdown menus that don’t open with keyboard input
• pop-up windows that trap focus
• buttons that require a mouse click
• carousels that move automatically without pause controls

One tester described a restaurant ordering site where the checkout button couldn’t be reached by keyboard at all. The focus jumped from the cart back to the top menu.

The user could browse food items but couldn’t actually place an order.

That kind of barrier is easy to demonstrate in court.

Color contrast failures

Color contrast is another frequent problem.

Text must have enough contrast against the background to be readable by people with low vision.

The WCAG 2.1 standard sets minimum ratios:

• 4.5:1 for normal text
• 3:1 for large text

Designers often pick light gray text on white backgrounds or pastel color combinations that look clean but fail the contrast requirement.

Automated scanners catch these quickly.

If the navigation menu, footer, and body text all fail contrast tests, attorneys take notice.

It suggests the site was designed without accessibility in mind.

Missing skip navigation links

Keyboard users often rely on “skip to content” links.

These links allow users to bypass large navigation menus and jump directly to the main content.

Without them, someone navigating with the Tab key must move through every menu item on every page.

That becomes tedious on sites with complex navigation.

Accessibility guidelines recommend placing a skip link at the top of the page.

A surprising number of websites still don’t have one.

Inaccessible PDFs

Many business websites host documents in PDF format.

Menus. Brochures. Intake forms. Policies.

If those PDFs aren’t tagged properly, screen readers can’t interpret them.

Common problems include:

• scanned documents saved as images
• missing reading order
• no headings or structure
• untagged tables

A restaurant might post its menu as a scanned PDF. A blind user opens it and hears nothing but “graphic.”

The information is technically available online, but not accessible.

Courts have allowed ADA claims based on inaccessible documents.

Lack of captions on video

Video content appears on many business sites now.

Promotional clips, product demos, welcome messages.

If those videos lack captions, deaf users can’t understand the content.

Captions also help people who watch videos without sound — which happens often on mobile devices.

Accessibility guidelines require synchronized captions for prerecorded video.

Attorneys often test this quickly by opening video pages and checking whether captions exist.

If not, it becomes another documented barrier.

Absence of an accessibility statement

Many attorneys check whether the website has an accessibility statement.

An accessibility statement usually explains:

• the site’s commitment to accessibility
• standards being followed (such as WCAG 2.1)
• contact information for reporting issues

Its presence doesn’t prevent lawsuits.

But its absence sometimes signals that the business hasn’t thought about accessibility at all.

Some law firms have said publicly that they’re less likely to target companies that show evidence of ongoing accessibility work.

Still, the statement alone isn’t protection. If the site is unusable, the statement won’t matter.

E-commerce checkout failures

E-commerce sites receive heavy scrutiny.

Attorneys often test the full purchasing process:

1. browse products
2. add an item to the cart
3. proceed to checkout
4. enter shipping and payment information

If any step fails with a screen reader or keyboard navigation, it becomes evidence of a barrier.

A small apparel store in California faced a lawsuit after a tester couldn’t complete checkout because the “Place Order” button lacked an accessible label.

The code labeled it only with an icon.

Sighted users saw a shopping bag symbol. Screen readers announced nothing.

The user couldn’t finish the purchase.

That single issue formed part of the complaint.

Pattern of errors across multiple pages

One error on a single page may not lead to a lawsuit.

But when the same problem appears everywhere, the risk increases.

Attorneys look for patterns such as:

• missing alt text on hundreds of images
• repeated form labeling errors
• navigation menus that fail on every page

Patterns suggest systemic accessibility issues.

They also strengthen the argument that the barriers are not isolated mistakes.

Evidence that real users attempted access

Some lawsuits involve testers who actively try to use the site.

They document the attempt.

A typical complaint might include statements like:

• the plaintiff attempted to book a hotel room
• the plaintiff attempted to purchase a product
• the plaintiff attempted to access a menu or service

The complaint then describes how accessibility barriers prevented the task.

Courts sometimes question whether testers genuinely intended to buy the product. But many rulings allow testers to file ADA claims even if their main purpose was identifying barriers.

That legal detail affects how cases are built.

Public visibility of the business

Attorneys also consider whether the business has a public profile.

Companies with:

• multiple locations
• significant online traffic
• strong brand presence

may attract more scrutiny.

The reasoning is practical. If a company has resources and a large customer base, it’s less likely to disappear or shut down after a complaint.

Smaller businesses still get sued, especially restaurants and medical practices. But the level of public visibility can influence case selection.

Geographic strategy

Accessibility lawsuits tend to cluster in certain states.

California, New York, and Florida have historically seen the highest numbers of filings.

Those states have legal environments that make these cases easier to pursue.

For example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act allows statutory damages.

That means plaintiffs can claim a fixed amount per violation, which increases settlement pressure.

Attorneys often focus on businesses operating in those jurisdictions.

Quick settlement potential

Another factor is how likely the case is to settle.

Many ADA website cases end in settlement rather than trial.

Attorneys often estimate:

• the cost for the defendant to fight the case
• the likelihood of dismissal
• the potential settlement range

If the website clearly fails accessibility tests, settlement becomes more probable.

Some business owners settle quickly to avoid legal expenses.

Critics argue that this dynamic encourages “serial litigation,” where a small number of plaintiffs file large numbers of cases.

That criticism has appeared in court opinions and legal commentary.

Example from a real lawsuit pattern

A restaurant chain in New York faced an accessibility complaint after a tester tried to view the online menu.

The menu page used decorative images for category headings. None of them had alt text.

A screen reader user navigating the page heard:

“graphic… graphic… graphic.”

No indication of appetizers, entrees, or desserts.

The tester documented the issue with screen reader output and screenshots.

The complaint listed multiple WCAG violations tied to those images.

That single design decision — using images instead of text headings — created the barrier that led to the lawsuit.

The limitation of automated evidence

Not all accessibility lawsuits rely on deep technical analysis.

Automated scans can generate false positives or miss context.

For example:

• a scanner might flag decorative images without alt text even though they should be empty
• contrast tools sometimes misread layered design elements

Defendants occasionally challenge these reports in court.

Accessibility experts hired by the defense may run manual audits and dispute the findings.

Still, automated evidence appears frequently in complaints.

It’s quick to produce and easy to explain.

Why certain industries get targeted more often

Some industries appear repeatedly in accessibility lawsuits.

Restaurants. Hotels. e-commerce stores. Medical offices. Banks.

These sectors share a few traits:

• heavy customer interaction
• frequent online booking or ordering
• large numbers of pages or products

A restaurant site with hundreds of menu images creates more opportunities for missing alt text than a small brochure website.

Volume increases the chance that scanners will find errors.

The economics behind these cases

ADA website litigation has developed a predictable economic structure.

Plaintiffs’ firms often handle multiple cases simultaneously.

The cost of identifying potential defendants is low because scanning tools are inexpensive and automated.

Once a firm identifies a site with accessibility errors, the legal process follows a familiar path:

1. accessibility review
2. complaint filed in federal court
3. negotiation or settlement

Settlement amounts vary widely.

Some small businesses settle for a few thousand dollars plus remediation commitments. Others pay significantly more depending on the jurisdiction and legal fees involved.

Critics argue that this system incentivizes high-volume litigation rather than accessibility improvements.

Disability advocates respond that lawsuits remain one of the few enforcement tools available because federal regulations for websites are still incomplete.

Both arguments appear in legal discussions.

The role of WCAG standards

Most complaints reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, usually WCAG 2.1.

These guidelines were developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.

They outline technical criteria for accessible websites.

Common requirements include:

• text alternatives for images
• keyboard accessibility
• sufficient color contrast
• properly labeled forms

Although WCAG isn’t written into the ADA statute itself, courts often treat it as the benchmark for accessibility.

That’s why attorneys frequently cite it in complaints.

Signs that a website has already been reviewed by accessibility professionals

Some websites show signs of accessibility work.

Examples include:

• proper heading structure
• consistent alt text on images
• keyboard-accessible menus
• captioned videos

Attorneys who encounter these features may move on.

Fixing a site isn’t trivial, but a partially accessible site may require more testing and documentation before filing a case.

Law firms working at scale often prioritize easier targets.

Why overlays don’t stop lawsuits

Some businesses install accessibility overlay widgets hoping to avoid legal issues.

These tools add buttons that adjust text size, color contrast, or screen reader behavior.

Many accessibility professionals criticize overlays.

They often fail to fix underlying code issues.

Some lawsuits have specifically mentioned overlays as ineffective solutions.

A number of disability organizations have also spoken against them.

In practice, the presence of an overlay rarely prevents a lawsuit if the site itself remains inaccessible.

what this means for businesses

Businesses rarely see the initial accessibility scan or testing process.

They only see the result: a demand letter or court complaint.

By that point, someone has likely documented multiple barriers.

Understanding how attorneys evaluate websites explains why certain sites get targeted.

The patterns are consistent.

Sites with widespread accessibility failures, visible errors, and public-facing services tend to attract attention first.