'Curve Flattens' for ADA Website-Accessibility Lawsuit Filings, Seyfarth Report Says
For sure, 2019 saw a lot of new suits. But on a year-over-year basis, it was "flat," said two Seyfarth Shaw partners who track the number of federal suits filed nationally. By contrast, from 2017 to 2018 there was "an explosive 177% increase" in the number of suits, from 814 to 2,258.
May 06, 2020 at 11:38 AM
4 minute read
After explosive growth in the number of American with Disabilities Act website-accessibility lawsuits launched in 2018, it appears that the once-rising tide of litigation has leveled off, according to Am Law 100 firm Seyfarth Shaw.
In 2019, there were 2,256 ADA website-accessibility lawsuits filed in the nation's federal courts, as compared with just two more (2,258) in 2018, according to Seyfarth labor and employment partners Minh Vu and Kristina Launey, who keep a tally of various ADA suits lodged by the federal courts and who blog about their findings.
The title of their recent blog post on the latest year-over-year data: "The Curve Has Flattened for Federal Website Accessibility Lawsuits."
For sure, 2019 saw a lot of new suits. But on a year-over-year basis, it was "flat," the blog authors said. By contrast, from 2017 to 2018 there was "an explosive 177% increase" in the number of suits, from 814 to 2,258.
But one thing did not change about the 2019 numbers: New York's federal court system continued to be the dominant place for filing the website-accessibility suits, just as it had been in recent years, according to Seyfarth.
The Empire State saw 1,354 federal website-accessibility suits launched in 2019, down from 1,564 in 2018.
Meanwhile, said Seyfarth, Florida held steady to its position as the jurisdiction with the second-highest total of newly filed accessibility suits. It saw 526 lodged in 2019, down from 576 in 2018.
In a flipping of the script for the distant third and fourth positions on the list, however, California (120 new suits) and Pennsylvania (92) moved up past Illinois (91) and Massachusetts (33) in 2019 for those spots. At the same time, the number of website-accessibility actions for all four of those states more than doubled in 2019 when compared to 2018, said Vu and Launey's blog post.
In highlighting more of their findings, the partners pointed to the lack of any "surge" in new cases, once the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pro-plaintiff Robles v. Domino's decision in the area of website-accessibility litigation.
Vu and Launey noted that they'd predicted a no-review of the Robles decision would lead to an increase in case filings. But the partners reported that before the Supreme Court's Oct. 7, 2019, refusal to hear the case, an average of seven lawsuits were filed a day. After the Oct. 7 date, four a day were lodged on average.
They also reported that "while the greatest number of suits were filed in July and August (258 and 270, respectively), monthly filings then decreased by nearly half for each of the last four months of the year."
In 2020 so far, they added, "the number of filings went back up for the first three months … but were still lower that the number of filings in the same months in 2019."
Over the last decade, the growing website-accessibility area of litigation—in which disabled people, citing the ADA, sue websites that allegedly aren't coded to work with assisting technologies such as screen readers—has generated controversy.
As the litigation has grown rapidly over the last decade, some have publicly criticized what they see as a plaintiffs lawyer-driven glut of suits that seem mostly geared toward collecting attorney fees, especially when some states impose seemingly low caps on amounts plaintiffs can recover.
But in a 2019 interview with the New York Law Journal, Joseph Mizrahi of Brooklyn-based law firm Cohen & Mizrahi, a leading New York firm in bringing website-accessibility suits, defended the need for the tide of litigation.
"We have many clients and over the course of their lives they have visited many websites that they cannot access, and they want to enjoy the internet just like anybody else does," he said in the interview.
The ADA statute "allows for attorney fees, [and] there is a lot of work that goes into preparing, litigating and monitoring compliance," he also said. Then he asked rhetorically, "So which attorney is going to work for free?"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Judge Denies Standing for Plaintiffs in Copyright Suit Over AI Training of ChatGPT
GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1On the Move and After Hours: Riker Danzig; Goldberg Segalla; Rawle & Henderson; Laddey Clark; Volunteer Lawyers for Justice
- 2Waiving a Liability Insurer’s Right to Subrogation—Is It Appropriate?
- 3Judge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement—With Conditions
- 4DC Circuit Upholds Law Forcing Sale or Ban of TikTok in the US
- 5Adapting for Success: Strategic Insights for Law Firms in 2025 and Beyond
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250