Online accessibility lawsuits continue to lead the civil rights dockets of federal and state courts across the country, with New York, New Jersey, and California typically handling the largest volume of such cases.
With the approach of spring 2026, here are some summaries of where accessibility lawsuits stand now and potential trends to watch for over the rest of the year.
Lawsuit Numbers:
There were only about 100 fewer federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) website accessibility lawsuits against private businesses in 2025 compared to 2024. Overall numbers of lawsuits remain high, several times greater than only about one decade ago.
However, one change is that more website accessibility lawsuits are being filed in state courts where the cases allege violations of state non-discrimination laws. One of the most significant changes in the past year has been the explosive growth of ADA AI-generateed lawsuits filed by pro se litigants, or people who are litigating their own cases without lawyers.
AI enables people to generate their own legal pleadings and documents. However, minimal scrutiny of the AI generated documents reveal troubling signs – the use of non-existent cases, incorrect descriptions of court decisions, legal briefs generated in much less time than it would
take the pro se litigant to type the documents themselves, and written pleadings and briefs that reflect far more proficient English language skills than revealed by the litigants orally during in-person court hearings. According to an October 2025 NBC News report
“In interviews, lawyers and litigants described AI as producing mixed results in court. Some say AI tools are helping them navigate mazes of court procedure and simplify legal jargon. Others have faced steep penalties for submitting court filings with inaccurate or nonexistent information. Regardless of the consequences, legal practitioners and experts say generative AI tools appear to be encouraging certain people to seek legal guidance from algorithms instead of human lawyers.
I’ve seen more and more pro se litigants in the last year than I have in probably my entire career,” said Meagan Holmes, a paralegal at Phoenix-based law firm Thorpe Shwer, talking about the use of AI chatbots in law.
Some leading AI companies discourage customers from using their services for legal purposes, while others have made little to no mention of the possibility. Google’s terms of service state: “Don’t rely on the Services for medical, legal, financial, or other professional advice. Any content regarding those topics is provided for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for advice from a qualified professional.” The acceptable use policy for AI warns users not to use its models to operate “in a regulated industry or region without complying with those regulations.”
Yet when asked legal questions, most chatbots will respond and provide legal advice without any warnings beyond ever-present, fine-print disclaimers noting that generative AI answers may not be accurate.
Even as some litigants have found success in small-claims disputes, legal professionals who spoke to NBC News say AI-drafted court documents are often littered with inaccuracies and faulty reasoning.
Holmes said litigants “will use a case that ChatGPT gave them, and when I go to look it up, it does not exist. Most of the time, we get them dismissed for failure to state an actual claim, because a lot of times it’s just kind of, not to be rude, but nonsense.” AI models often generate information that is false or misleading but presented as fact, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Chatbots are trained on vast datasets to predict the most likely response to a query but sometimes encounter gaps in their knowledge. In these cases, the model may attempt to fill in the missing pieces with its best approximation, which can result in inaccurate or fabricated details.
For litigants, AI hallucinations can lead to pricey penalties. Jack Owoc, a colorful Florida-based energy drink mogul who lost a false advertising case to the tune of $311 million and is now representing himself, was recently sanctioned for referencing court cases that do not exist.”
In addition, some courts have sanctioned pro se litigants who use AI tools improperly by relying upon them for legal advice, and have dismissed some cases outright for the misuse of such tools. U.S. District Judge Boyko in Ohio has a standing order banning the use of AI by lawyers or pro se parties to prepare any document filed with the court. Additional state and federal courts are planning to implement similar restrictions.
Repeat Plaintiffs:
Courts have begun cracking down on serial lawsuit filers, individuals and law firms who regularly file accessibility lawsuits that make the same allegations over and over.
For example, in the New Yok federal court case of Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC, Case No. 1:2024cv04878, (S.D.N.Y. 2025), plaintiff had filed dozens of “cookie-cutter, fill-in-the-blanks” complaints where they alleged over and over that he went to a website to purchase a product, described a desire or need for the product, summarized some combination of features on the website that prevented his purchase, and asserted that he would return to make the purchase once the issue was corrected. The Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC Court also observed that the plaintiff’s lawyers used the same template pleading in cases filed by eight other plaintiffs.
New York federal courts have begun holding serial plaintiffs and their lawyers to stricter standards, by ordering them to produce additional evidence proving their “standing,” or right to sue. One consequence of this tightening scrutiny is a significant increase in website accessibility lawsuit filings in New York state courts instead of the federal courts.
Surprising Justice Department (DOJ) Intervention:
DOJ has not been actively enforcing website accessibility requirements. DOJ’s new accessibility regulations apply to ADA Title II organizations, state and local governments and federally subsidized health care, and not ADA Title III businesses.
Nevertheless, on February 2, 2026, DOJ filed a Statement of Interest (SOI) opposing a proposed settlement of a 2022 federal class action lawsuit about the accessibility of a retailer’s website. In Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-01434, (N.D. Calif., 2022) plaintiffs alleged that Fashion Nova operates an online retail website that is inaccessible to blind individuals under ADA Title III and California state law.
The settlement requires Fashion Nova to modify its website to comply with WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) 2.1. Defendant further committed to implementing a website accessibility policy within 180 days after the agreement becomes effective. Fashion Nova agreed to pay approximately $2.43 million in discrimination money damages and $2.52 million in attorneys’ fees.
In a largely unprecedented and stunning development, DOJ filed its SOI, after making no prior comments about this case to the Court, that settlement be rejected because the settlement allegedly does not “meaningfully increase accessibility, and the monetary payments disproportionately favors the attorneys over the members of the class.” DOJ further argued that “the United States does not oppose relief that would actually make a website available to individuals who are blind or have low vision; rather, we oppose using a civil claim principally to enrich class counsel on the backs of persons with disabilities instead of vindicating the rights of persons with disabilities,” going so far as to hire its own accessibility expert who claimed the settlement did not fully address the website accessibility problems at issue in the lawsuit.
In addition, DOJ stated that “[t]he United States does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard for the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Title III of the ADA. We merely apply the standard that plaintiff has elected in the proposed settlement to the claims administration website for that same settlement.” This position is inconsistent with DOJ’s many settlement agreements which adopt WCAG 2.0 AA or 2.1 AA as the accessibility standard.
Key takeaways: DOJ signals that it will examine past settlement agreements, whether previously endorsed or not by DOJ and raise similar considerations about the lawyers filing cases representing people with disabilities who cannot access certain websites. DOJ’s potential scrutiny may result in more confidential, court sealed agreements and cases being filed in state courts where DOJ has no jurisdiction to file SOIs.
Outlook for 2026:
Lawsuit numbers continue climbing; use of AI to illegally provide legal advice will continue; ongoing increases in state court website accessibility lawsuits; low level or non-existent federal ADA website accessibility enforcement; and DOJ intervention in select cases that have been settled or are in the process of settlement with allegations similar to those made by DOJ in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc.
© Bruce L. Adelson 2026 All Rights Reserved The material herein is educational and informational only. No legal advice is intended or conveyed.
Bruce L. Adelson, Esq., is nationally recognized for his compliance expertise. Mr. Adelson is a former U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Senior Trial Attorney. Mr. Adelson is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he teaches organizational culture, implicit bias, cultural and civil rights awareness.
Mr. Adelson’s blogs are a Bromberg exclusive.