ADA Laws in North Dakota

how ADA laws apply to businesses in North Dakota

Accessibility lawsuits involving websites rarely start with North Dakota statutes. Most begin with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal law passed on July 26, 1990. The statute was written before the commercial internet existed. Congress focused on physical access: wheelchair ramps, accessible parking, and communication accommodations.

Thirty years later, the same law now appears in lawsuits about websites, mobile apps, and online booking systems.

Courts treat many digital services as extensions of the physical business. If a restaurant in Fargo lets customers order online, or a dental clinic in Bismarck uses a web appointment system, those tools become part of the service offered to the public. When disabled users cannot use those tools, the dispute moves into ADA territory.

North Dakota itself does not have a standalone website accessibility law that replaces federal requirements. Businesses in the state operate under the ADA along with general disability protections in North Dakota Human Rights Act. Most accessibility lawsuits still rely on the federal statute because it directly governs public accommodations.

The pattern is consistent across the country. Demand letters appear first. Lawsuits follow when negotiations fail. The cases usually settle before trial.

The mechanics are simple. A blind user visits a website using screen-reader software. Something breaks. The user cannot complete a task that other customers complete easily.

The complaint lists the barriers.

Missing alt text. Broken form labels. Menu navigation that only works with a mouse. Checkout pages that trap keyboard users.

Those technical issues have become the center of ADA website litigation.

the federal statute that drives website accessibility cases

The ADA contains five major sections. Website lawsuits almost always rely on Title III.

Title III governs businesses that serve the public. The statute calls them “places of public accommodation.” The law lists twelve categories of businesses. The list includes restaurants, hotels, theaters, retail stores, banks, professional offices, recreation facilities, and healthcare providers.

When a business falls into one of those categories, it must provide equal access to its services.

Originally that meant physical access.

Accessible entrances. Elevators. Braille signage. Wheelchair seating areas in stadiums.

The language is broader than those examples. The statute prohibits discrimination in the “full and equal enjoyment” of services.

Courts began applying that phrase to digital services once commerce moved online.

Consider a real scenario that appears in complaints filed across the United States.

A blind user attempts to schedule a dental appointment through a clinic website. The appointment form contains text inside each field but no programmatic label attached to the input element. A screen reader reads the field simply as “edit blank.” The user cannot determine whether the field asks for a phone number, an email address, or a date of birth.

The appointment system fails for that user.

A lawsuit then alleges that the website denied equal access to the clinic’s services.

That claim falls directly under Title III of the ADA.

why website lawsuits expanded after 2015

Website accessibility lawsuits existed before 2015, but the numbers stayed relatively small. Several developments pushed the numbers higher.

The first was the shift toward digital services. Online ordering systems replaced phone orders. Retail stores moved checkout flows onto websites. Restaurants adopted delivery platforms. Medical practices added patient portals.

Once those services existed online, accessibility barriers became easier to identify.

The second factor was a set of federal court decisions allowing ADA website claims to move forward.

One of the most widely cited cases is Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC. The case began when a blind customer in California tried to order pizza through Domino’s website and mobile app. Screen-reader software could not complete the order.

The company argued that the ADA did not apply to websites because the statute does not mention the internet.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in 2019. The court ruled that the website and mobile app connected directly to Domino’s physical restaurants and therefore had to provide accessible access to those services.

The decision did not come from a North Dakota court, but its reasoning influenced cases nationwide.

After that ruling, many judges allowed similar lawsuits to proceed past early dismissal attempts.

the courts that handle ADA lawsuits involving North Dakota businesses

North Dakota sits within the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Federal accessibility lawsuits filed against businesses in the state usually begin in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, which operates courthouses in Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks.

Cases may eventually move to the Eighth Circuit if appeals occur.

The Eighth Circuit has not issued a sweeping ruling stating that all websites must be accessible under the ADA. Many district courts still allow accessibility claims to proceed when the website is tied to a physical location that serves the public.

The legal reasoning follows a pattern seen in other circuits.

If a website acts as a gateway to a physical business, accessibility barriers can interfere with the user’s ability to access that business.

That link often determines whether a case survives early motions.

how the North Dakota Human Rights Act fits into accessibility disputes

North Dakota has its own civil rights law covering discrimination.

The statute is called the North Dakota Human Rights Act. It prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment, housing, public services, and public accommodations.

The language mirrors the ADA in several areas.

Some accessibility lawsuits add claims under this state law along with ADA allegations.

The federal ADA remains the primary legal tool because it directly addresses public accommodations and allows plaintiffs to request court orders requiring businesses to fix accessibility problems.

The state law may add additional remedies depending on the claim.

what plaintiffs actually claim in website accessibility lawsuits

Complaints filed in federal court tend to look very similar.

A visually impaired plaintiff uses screen-reader software such as JAWS screen reader, NVDA screen reader, or VoiceOver.

The user visits a business website.

The user attempts to perform a task. Buy a product. Schedule an appointment. Download a document.

Something fails.

The complaint then lists the technical barriers encountered during that attempt.

Typical allegations include:

images with no alternative text
links that read “click here” with no context
forms without accessible labels
navigation menus that require mouse interaction
color contrast too low for users with visual impairments
PDF documents that screen readers cannot read

Most lawsuits also reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

WCAG was developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.

Courts use WCAG because it provides measurable technical standards. The ADA itself does not include technical website requirements.

the accessibility standard that appears in settlements

The version most commonly cited in legal settlements is WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

WCAG organizes accessibility into four principles.

Content must be perceivable.
Content must be operable.
Content must be understandable.
Content must be robust enough to work with assistive technology.

Those principles translate into technical requirements for developers.

Examples include:

text alternatives for non-text content
keyboard accessibility for all functionality
clear page structure with headings
consistent navigation across pages
error messages that screen readers can detect

Developers implement these features through semantic HTML, accessible JavaScript components, ARIA attributes, and accessible document formats.

an accessibility problem that appears constantly: online forms

Forms generate a large share of accessibility complaints.

Many websites rely on visual placeholders inside form fields. Designers often place text inside the input box that disappears once the user begins typing.

For sighted users, the placeholder text may appear to work.

Screen readers treat the field differently. If the developer does not attach a programmatic label element to the input field, the software cannot identify the field’s purpose.

The screen reader may simply say “edit blank.”

The user must guess what the field requests.

A blind user in a 2020 lawsuit described trying to complete a checkout form on a retail website. The first field read “edit blank.” The second field read the same. The third field read the same.

The user could not determine where to enter the shipping address or payment information.

That type of barrier forms the basis of many accessibility claims.

the role of automated accessibility scans

Accessibility scanning tools play a large role in litigation.

Programs such as WAVE accessibility evaluation tool, axe DevTools, and Google Lighthouse can analyze a webpage within seconds.

They detect missing alt text, color contrast failures, and HTML structure problems.

Attorneys sometimes run automated scans across thousands of websites. When the tool identifies violations, those sites may become targets for demand letters.

Automated scans do not catch everything.

Accessibility testing often requires manual review with screen readers and keyboard navigation.

A website may technically pass automated tests yet still fail real-world use.

why small businesses receive many demand letters

Large corporations attract headlines when they face ADA lawsuits. Small businesses receive many of the demand letters.

Several reasons explain the pattern.

Small companies often use inexpensive website templates with limited accessibility testing.

Restaurants frequently upload scanned menus as PDF images rather than structured documents.

Medical clinics sometimes publish intake forms as scanned documents.

Automated scanners detect these issues quickly.

When the errors appear across multiple pages, attorneys may view the site as a potential ADA claim.

A restaurant owner in Grand Forks described receiving a demand letter in 2022 after a plaintiff’s attorney ran a scan on the restaurant’s website. The site contained three scanned PDF menus with no text layer. Screen readers interpreted them as blank images.

The letter requested a settlement and accessibility remediation.

The owner had built the site through a template service and did not know the PDFs created accessibility problems.

healthcare providers appear often in accessibility complaints

Healthcare websites contain several features that generate accessibility risk.

Appointment scheduling tools.
Patient intake forms.
Insurance verification portals.
Medical history documents.

When those systems fail for screen-reader users, the barrier blocks access to medical services.

Courts have been receptive to these claims because the services involved are essential.

Dental practices, dermatology clinics, and urgent care centers appear regularly in ADA complaints.

Many of these cases resolve quickly through settlement agreements requiring accessibility remediation.

restaurants and online ordering systems

Restaurants provide another common example.

Online ordering systems often rely on dynamic JavaScript menus, image-based food listings, and checkout flows that require mouse interaction.

When keyboard users cannot navigate those menus, the ordering system becomes inaccessible.

Delivery integrations can complicate the situation. A restaurant may rely on a third-party ordering platform.

Courts typically focus on whether the restaurant provides accessible ordering options.

If the website directs customers to an inaccessible ordering system, the accessibility problem remains.

the department of justice position on website accessibility

The United States Department of Justice has addressed website accessibility repeatedly.

The agency announced plans in 2010 to create formal ADA website regulations. Those rules were never finalized.

Despite the absence of formal regulations, the Department of Justice has consistently stated that the ADA applies to websites providing public services.

In March 2022 the agency published guidance explaining that businesses should make their websites accessible and referencing WCAG as a helpful framework.

The guidance does not function as a formal regulation. Courts still cite it when evaluating ADA claims.

the problem of inaccessible PDFs

PDF files appear frequently in accessibility lawsuits.

Many businesses treat PDFs as digital images. They scan paper documents and upload the file directly to the website.

Screen readers cannot interpret scanned images of text.

Accessible PDFs require tagged structure, logical reading order, and alternative text for images.

Restaurants often upload menu PDFs. Real estate offices upload property brochures. Medical clinics publish consent forms.

When those files lack accessibility tags, the screen reader reads nothing.

The user receives silence.

mobile apps and ADA accessibility

Mobile apps now appear in accessibility complaints alongside websites.

Retailers encourage customers to use mobile apps for loyalty rewards and purchasing. Banks rely on apps for account management. Restaurants push app-based ordering.

Accessibility barriers in mobile apps include unlabeled buttons, gesture controls that screen readers cannot interpret, and text that cannot scale for visually impaired users.

Both Apple and Android operating systems include built-in screen readers.

Testing with VoiceOver on iOS and TalkBack on Android quickly exposes accessibility problems.

Developers often discover that the mobile interface requires different accessibility techniques than the website.

the cost of accessibility remediation

Fixing accessibility problems varies widely depending on the size of the site.

Small websites may require limited development work.

Developers may need to add form labels, restructure headings, improve color contrast, and replace inaccessible PDFs.

Larger websites involve more complex remediation.

E-commerce platforms require accessibility across product galleries, filters, checkout pages, account dashboards, and customer service forms.

Accessibility consultants often estimate remediation projects between $5,000 and $30,000 for mid-size business websites.

Large enterprise platforms can cost far more when redesigns are necessary.

These costs explain why many businesses settle lawsuits early rather than litigate.

criticism of ADA website lawsuits

The rise in accessibility lawsuits has produced criticism from business groups.

Critics argue that some attorneys conduct mass scanning campaigns and file lawsuits quickly after identifying errors.

They claim businesses receive little notice before legal action.

Disability advocates respond with a different view.

They point out that online services now handle essential tasks: ordering food, scheduling medical visits, managing finances, applying for jobs.

When those systems fail for disabled users, access to everyday services disappears.

Courts generally avoid debating policy questions. Judges focus on whether the statute prohibits unequal access.

public universities and accessibility obligations

Public universities in North Dakota face additional accessibility requirements.

Two federal laws apply to them.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Section 504 applies to institutions receiving federal funding.

University websites contain thousands of pages, course documents, and learning management systems. Accessibility compliance across those systems requires continuous monitoring.

Universities often maintain digital accessibility offices that review websites and course materials.

Even with those programs, accessibility complaints still occur.

government websites and ADA Title II

State and local government websites fall under Title II of the ADA.

Title II governs public entities.

Government websites handle tasks such as tax payments, license renewals, permit applications, and public records requests.

Accessibility failures can block residents from accessing those services.

Several federal settlements involving government websites have required agencies to adopt WCAG standards and conduct regular accessibility testing.

industries that face accessibility complaints most often

Certain sectors appear repeatedly in ADA website litigation.

Dental practices
Urgent care clinics
Dermatology clinics
Restaurants
Hotels
Auto dealerships
Retail stores

These industries share two traits.

They interact directly with consumers. They rely on online booking or ordering systems.

When those systems fail for assistive technology users, the legal claim becomes straightforward.

the numbers behind ADA website litigation

Accessibility lawsuits increased steadily during the last decade.

Data compiled by accessibility consulting firm UsableNet shows the trend.

Federal website accessibility lawsuits in the United States reached roughly:

814 cases in 2017
2,285 cases in 2018
3,550 cases in 2020
more than 4,000 cases in 2023

Those numbers include cases across the entire country.

North Dakota sees fewer filings than large states such as California or New York. Demand letters still reach businesses in smaller states, and settlements often occur without public court records.

the limits of accessibility compliance

Even websites that follow WCAG guidelines sometimes face accessibility complaints.

Websites change constantly. New plugins appear. Content editors upload documents. Developers modify page templates.

Accessibility issues can reappear after updates.

Screen readers also interpret pages differently depending on the software used.

A website tested with NVDA may behave differently with JAWS or VoiceOver.

For that reason, accessibility programs focus on ongoing testing rather than one-time fixes.

Businesses that treat accessibility as a single project often discover new issues months later.

how courts analyze accessibility lawsuits

Judges typically examine several factors when evaluating ADA website complaints.

Did the plaintiff attempt to use the website?

Did accessibility barriers prevent the user from completing a task?

Does the website connect to a physical business that serves the public?

If those elements appear in the complaint, the case often proceeds beyond early motions.

Few website accessibility cases reach trial. Litigation costs increase quickly for both sides.

Settlement agreements usually require accessibility remediation, periodic testing, and attorney fee payments.

the practical reality for businesses operating in North Dakota

Businesses in North Dakota operate under the same federal ADA obligations that apply across the United States.

When websites block disabled users from ordering food, scheduling appointments, or accessing documents, the barrier can trigger an ADA claim.

Accessibility disputes rarely reach a courtroom verdict.

Most resolve through negotiated settlements requiring accessibility improvements and payment of legal fees.

The technical issues involved are usually straightforward: unlabeled forms, inaccessible PDFs, broken keyboard navigation, and missing image descriptions.

Those details determine whether a website works with assistive technology.

And those details now determine whether the website becomes the subject of an ADA lawsuit.