ADA Laws in Michigan

ADA laws in Michigan: what they actually require for websites

ADA laws in Michigan are not a separate digital statute passed by the Michigan Legislature. Website accessibility in Michigan comes from federal law, mainly Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and from state disability discrimination law under the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), MCL 37.1101–37.1607.

If you run a business in Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Lansing, or anywhere else in the state, your website sits inside that framework. There is no Michigan-specific “website ADA act.” But Michigan businesses get sued in federal court under the ADA. And public agencies in Michigan are directly regulated by a 2024 U.S. Department of Justice rule that sets a technical standard for government websites.

Most confusion starts there. So I’ll separate it.

Private businesses in Michigan are usually sued under ADA Title III.
State and local government entities in Michigan are governed by ADA Title II and, as of April 24, 2024, must comply with a specific technical rule tied to WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

The law is federal. The lawsuits are local. The compliance work is technical.

That’s the reality.

The legal structure behind ADA website compliance in Michigan

The Americans with Disabilities Act became law on July 26, 1990. It prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment (Title I), state and local government services (Title II), and places of public accommodation (Title III), among other areas.

For websites in Michigan, two titles matter:

• Title II: applies to state and local government entities.
• Title III: applies to private businesses that are “places of public accommodation.”

There is no explicit reference to websites in the original 1990 statute. The internet barely existed in public use then. Courts filled that gap over time.

In Michigan, most website cases are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) or the Western District of Michigan (Grand Rapids).

Federal courts in the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, have taken the position that a website must have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation to fall under Title III. That position comes from Sixth Circuit precedent, including decisions interpreting physical access requirements and later district court rulings applying those principles to websites.

That means:

If a business has a physical storefront in Michigan and its website is connected to that location, the ADA likely applies.

If the business is purely online and has no physical location open to the public, the law is less settled in the Sixth Circuit than in places like the Ninth Circuit or Second Circuit. But plaintiffs still file cases. And many businesses settle rather than litigate the threshold question.

Michigan does not have a state-level website accessibility statute equivalent to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. It does not contain a detailed digital accessibility framework. So most website litigation strategy in Michigan relies on federal ADA claims.

That matters for damages. Under federal Title III, private plaintiffs generally cannot recover compensatory damages. They can seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. That shifts the economics of the case.

Defense costs plus remediation often exceed the cost of fixing the site before a lawsuit.

The 2024 DOJ rule and what it means for Michigan government websites

On April 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice published a final rule updating Title II regulations under the ADA. The rule requires state and local government entities to make web content and mobile apps conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA.

This is the first time the federal government has formally adopted a specific WCAG version and level in binding regulations.

That applies to:

• State of Michigan executive branch agencies
• Michigan counties
• Michigan cities, townships, and villages
• Public school districts
• Public colleges and universities, including institutions like the University of Michigan and Michigan State University

The compliance deadlines depend on population size.

Public entities serving 50,000 or more people generally have two years from the rule’s publication date to comply. Smaller entities have three years.

The rule includes limited exceptions, such as archived web content and preexisting social media posts under certain conditions. But the default is WCAG 2.1 AA.

This is not voluntary guidance. It is federal regulation.

If a Michigan city runs a website that allows residents to pay water bills, apply for permits, or download forms, that site must meet WCAG 2.1 AA by the applicable deadline.

There is a trade-off here. Smaller Michigan townships often operate on tight budgets. Retrofitting a legacy website built in 2012 on a proprietary CMS can cost $15,000 to $40,000 depending on complexity. Some townships simply don’t have in-house IT staff.

But budget constraints do not remove the obligation.

What WCAG 2.1 AA actually requires

Most demand letters in Michigan cite WCAG 2.0 AA or WCAG 2.1 AA. The DOJ rule references WCAG 2.1 AA specifically.

WCAG is developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It is not a law by itself. It becomes binding when incorporated into a settlement, court order, or regulation.

WCAG 2.1 AA covers:

• Text alternatives for non-text content (alt text)
• Keyboard accessibility
• Color contrast minimums (4.5:1 for normal text)
• Resizable text up to 200 percent without loss of functionality
• Proper heading structure
• Form labels and error identification
• Focus indicators
• Logical reading order

In Michigan lawsuits I’ve reviewed, the most common issues are basic:

Missing alt text on product images.
Forms without associated labels.
Menus that can’t be accessed by keyboard.
Low contrast gray-on-white text.

Not exotic problems. Routine ones.

A retail client in Oakland County had 3,200 product images on its Shopify site. About 70 percent had no alt text. The demand letter included screenshots from a screen reader test using NVDA. The plaintiff’s counsel listed 22 specific barriers and demanded remediation plus attorney’s fees.

The remediation cost $18,000. The settlement added another $22,500 in fees.

The site could have been audited for under $5,000 the year before.

That’s how this usually goes.

ADA website lawsuits in Michigan: how they are filed and resolved

Website accessibility lawsuits in Michigan typically follow this pattern:

1. Plaintiff, often represented by a repeat ADA firm, visits the website using a screen reader.
2. Plaintiff identifies barriers.
3. A complaint is filed in federal court.
4. The complaint alleges violation of ADA Title III.
5. The defendant either moves to dismiss or negotiates settlement.

Most cases settle.

Settlements commonly require:

• WCAG 2.1 AA conformance within 12 to 18 months
• Third-party accessibility audit
• Accessibility statement on the website
• Designation of an accessibility coordinator
• Payment of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees

Attorney’s fees in Michigan website cases often range from $10,000 to $35,000 depending on stage of litigation. If the defendant litigates aggressively and loses, fees can increase.

The limitation here is clear: Title III does not provide damages to private plaintiffs. Some critics argue this encourages “serial litigation” because the economic incentive centers on fees.

Courts in Michigan have acknowledged the volume of repeat ADA plaintiffs but have not rejected website claims on that basis alone. Filing multiple ADA lawsuits does not automatically disqualify a plaintiff.

From a compliance perspective, arguing about the plaintiff’s litigation history rarely fixes the underlying accessibility defects.

Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act and its role

The Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) predates the ADA. It was enacted in 1976 and amended several times since.

The statute prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, and education.

It does not contain detailed digital accessibility standards. There are relatively few published Michigan appellate decisions directly addressing website accessibility under PWDCRA.

In practice, most website cases in Michigan proceed under federal ADA claims. Plaintiffs may include state law claims as supplemental counts, but the core analysis still turns on federal ADA doctrine.

That means Michigan businesses focus on ADA compliance rather than a separate Michigan technical standard.

Employment and internal systems in Michigan

Title I of the ADA covers employment. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

For Michigan employers, this affects:

• Online job application portals
• Internal HR systems
• Employee benefits platforms

If a job application form is not accessible to a screen reader, that can trigger a Title I issue. These cases often proceed through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before reaching court.

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights also handles disability discrimination complaints under state law. But website-based employment cases still rely heavily on ADA standards.

An HR portal that times out after five minutes without warning can create a barrier. So can a PDF job description that is not tagged for accessibility.

These problems are technical. They’re also predictable.

Mobile apps and ADA compliance in Michigan

Websites are only part of the issue.

If a Michigan-based retailer or bank offers a mobile app that customers use to order products, manage accounts, or schedule services, that app is part of the goods and services offered to the public.

Courts have treated mobile apps as subject to ADA requirements when they connect to a physical place of public accommodation.

The DOJ’s 2024 Title II rule explicitly covers mobile apps for government entities. That includes city apps used for paying taxes or reporting issues.

Mobile app accessibility testing involves:

• VoiceOver (iOS)
• TalkBack (Android)
• Proper labeling of buttons
• Gesture alternatives
• Dynamic type scaling

Many businesses invest in website remediation but ignore the app. Plaintiffs don’t.

Accessibility overlays and why they don’t resolve liability

Some Michigan businesses respond to demand letters by installing accessibility overlay widgets. These tools claim to “fix” accessibility with a script.

Overlays do not correct underlying code. They do not add semantic structure where none exists. They cannot rewrite inaccessible custom JavaScript components at scale.

Several federal courts outside Michigan have noted that the presence of an overlay does not moot ADA claims if underlying barriers remain. Michigan courts have not treated overlays as a safe harbor.

There is a trade-off here. Overlays are inexpensive, often under $1,000 per year. Full code remediation may cost tens of thousands for complex sites.

But overlays have not stopped lawsuits.

Cost of ADA website compliance in Michigan

Costs vary by site size and platform.

Small informational site (10–20 pages):

• Audit: $2,000–$5,000
• Remediation: $3,000–$10,000

Mid-size ecommerce site (1,000+ products):

• Audit: $5,000–$15,000
• Remediation: $15,000–$60,000

Large enterprise site or government portal:

• Audit: $20,000+
• Remediation: six figures depending on scope

These numbers reflect 2024–2025 market pricing from accessibility vendors working in the Midwest.

Litigation costs in Michigan federal court can exceed $50,000 if the case proceeds through motions practice and discovery.

From a pure financial perspective, proactive compliance is usually cheaper. Not morally better. Just cheaper.

A specific example from western Michigan

In 2023, a regional restaurant group based in Kent County received a demand letter alleging that its online ordering platform was inaccessible to screen reader users.

The site used a third-party ordering plugin embedded via iframe. The plugin had unlabeled buttons and dynamic menus that were not keyboard accessible.

The business owner initially argued that the ordering platform was “managed by the vendor.” The demand letter cited case law stating that public accommodations cannot delegate ADA compliance to third parties when those services are integrated into their website.

The restaurant group hired an accessibility consultant. The fix required:

• Replacing the ordering plugin
• Updating color contrast across the main site
• Adding alt text to 600 images
• Creating an accessibility statement

Total remediation cost: $27,000.
Settlement payment to plaintiff’s counsel: $19,500.

The owner later admitted the ordering system had been frustrating even for sighted customers on mobile devices. The accessibility audit revealed broader usability issues.

The trade-off was time. The redesign took four months. During that period, marketing updates were paused.

That’s the part rarely discussed.

Accessibility statements and policies in Michigan

Most settlements require an accessibility statement posted on the website.

A typical statement includes:

• Commitment to accessibility
• Reference to WCAG 2.1 AA
• Contact information for reporting barriers
• Date of last review

An accessibility statement is not a shield. Courts do not dismiss cases because a site has one. But a documented accessibility policy and ongoing testing program can reduce litigation risk and support arguments that barriers are being actively addressed.

For Michigan government entities under the 2024 DOJ rule, documentation will matter even more. Agencies must be able to show conformance by the deadline.

Common misconceptions about ADA laws in Michigan

Misconception: Only large corporations get sued.
Reality: Small retailers, medical practices, restaurants, and service providers in Michigan have been defendants.

Misconception: ADA applies only to physical buildings.
Reality: Courts in Michigan have applied Title III to websites connected to physical locations.

Misconception: If no one complains, the site is fine.
Reality: Plaintiffs often identify sites through automated scans combined with manual testing.

Misconception: Adding an accessibility widget solves the problem.
Reality: It does not fix structural code issues.

Misconception: WCAG compliance guarantees immunity.
Reality: WCAG 2.1 AA conformance significantly reduces risk but does not eliminate litigation entirely.

The limitation of WCAG as a compliance benchmark

WCAG 2.1 AA is detailed. It is also technical and sometimes ambiguous in application.

For example, “meaningful sequence” under Success Criterion 1.3.2 can be interpreted differently depending on layout. Automated tools catch only a portion of WCAG failures. Manual testing is required for keyboard navigation and screen reader usability.

There is no federal certification body that issues ADA compliance certificates.

That means compliance is ongoing, not static. Content updates can introduce new violations. A marketing team uploading a promotional banner without alt text can undo prior remediation.

This is not a one-time project.

How Michigan courts approach standing and mootness

In website ADA cases, defendants sometimes argue that the plaintiff lacks standing or that remediation moots the case.

Standing arguments often focus on whether the plaintiff intends to return to the website or the physical location. Courts in Michigan analyze these claims under Article III standards.

Mootness arguments arise when the defendant fixes the website after filing. Courts may dismiss cases if the defendant can show the alleged barriers are fully remedied and unlikely to recur. But partial remediation rarely succeeds.

The burden is on the defendant to prove mootness. That is not easy.

ADA compliance and higher education in Michigan

Public universities in Michigan fall under Title II and are subject to the 2024 DOJ rule.

University websites are complex:

• Admissions portals
• Course registration systems
• Learning management systems
• Digital libraries

WCAG compliance at that scale is resource-intensive. Some institutions have accessibility offices with dedicated staff. Others rely on distributed responsibility across departments.

Failure to make course materials accessible can also raise issues under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which applies to entities receiving federal funding.

In higher education, accessibility is not limited to public-facing marketing pages. It includes syllabi PDFs, captioned videos, and online course modules.

Practical compliance framework for Michigan businesses

An effective ADA website compliance program in Michigan typically includes:

• Third-party accessibility audit aligned to WCAG 2.1 AA
• Manual keyboard and screen reader testing
• Remediation roadmap with timelines
• Accessibility statement
• Ongoing quarterly or semiannual testing
• Internal content guidelines for staff

Documentation matters. If litigation occurs, showing a structured compliance effort can influence settlement posture.

But documentation alone is not enough. Code has to change.

Why ADA website compliance is not just a legal checkbox

The ADA is a civil rights statute. In Michigan, that principle intersects with digital commerce and government services.

When a blind user cannot complete an online pharmacy order in Flint because form fields lack labels, the barrier is concrete. It is not theoretical.

When a Detroit resident cannot renew a business license online because the PDF is not screen reader accessible, that is a barrier to public services.

Legal exposure is one driver of compliance. Access is another.

Both exist at the same time.

Final position on ADA laws in Michigan

ADA laws in Michigan apply to websites connected to physical places of public accommodation under Title III and to government websites under Title II. As of April 2024, state and local government entities must comply with WCAG 2.1 AA by regulatory deadline. Private businesses face ongoing litigation risk when websites contain accessibility barriers.

There is no Michigan-specific technical statute for websites. Federal ADA doctrine and DOJ regulations control. Enforcement occurs through federal lawsuits and negotiated settlements. Compliance costs vary, but litigation routinely exceeds proactive remediation expenses.

The pattern is consistent across Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Lansing, and smaller communities. Websites that are not accessible are exposed to legal claims. Websites built to WCAG 2.1 AA standards substantially reduce that risk but require ongoing maintenance. The obligation is continuous.