Key Takeaways
- 1Federal judges are ordering discovery hearings to test whether serial ADA plaintiffs genuinely intended to make purchases from the websites they sue
- 2In Fernandez v. Cuddle Clones (Feb 2026), a judge questioned a plaintiff who filed 57 lawsuits — 22 in just four days — and called $249+ custom pet replicas "pet toys"
- 3New York federal ADA filings have dropped 54% since 2022 as courts tighten standing requirements
- 4Serial plaintiff firms are shifting to state courts where standing requirements are less strict
- 5Judicial pushback targets lawsuit abuse — not the right to accessibility. Businesses still need accessible websites.
The Scale of Serial ADA Litigation
According to Seyfarth Shaw's annual tracking data, 8,667 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal courts in 2025. That number has hovered near the 8,000 mark for four consecutive years, down from a peak of 11,452 in 2021 — but still three times higher than when tracking began in 2013.
A disproportionate share of those lawsuits come from a relatively small number of plaintiffs and law firms. The DOJ noted in its February 2026 objection to the Fashion Nova settlement that the plaintiffs' law firm had filed over 500 identical lawsuits between 2019 and 2023. The lead plaintiff alone had filed 20 cases in 2020 and 2021 "alleging the same four accessibility barriers."
This pattern — sometimes called "drive-by" or "copy-paste" litigation — has long frustrated both businesses and disability rights advocates. The concern is not whether websites should be accessible (they should), but whether these lawsuits are designed to produce accessibility improvements or simply to generate settlement revenue.
Federal ADA Title III Lawsuits: The Trend
8,667
Lawsuits in 2025
11,452
Peak in 2021
3x
Increase since 2013
500+
Identical suits from one firm
Fernandez v. Cuddle Clones: The Pet Plushie Case That Made a Judge Pause
On February 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeanette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York took an unusual step: she ordered jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing into whether a plaintiff actually suffered a genuine injury. The judge made this decision sua sponte — on her own initiative, without the defendant even asking.
The case involved Fernandez v. Cuddle Clones, LLC, and the facts that caught Judge Vargas's attention paint a vivid picture of what courts are increasingly skeptical about.
🚩 Red Flags the Judge Identified
57 ADA Lawsuits Filed
The plaintiff had filed more than 57 ADA website accessibility lawsuits. While serial filing alone isn't disqualifying, the sheer volume raised eyebrows.
22 Lawsuits in Four Days
Within a single four-day period, the plaintiff allegedly attempted to buy a remarkable range of products — from vitamins to a solar generator — resulting in 22 separate lawsuits. That's more than five lawsuits generated per day.
Copy-Paste Complaints
The complaints were "nearly identical in structure and substance," mirroring hundreds of similar complaints filed by the same law firm on behalf of various plaintiffs.
"Pet Toy" vs. $249–$499 Custom Replicas
The complaint alleged the plaintiff wanted to buy a "pet toy." But Cuddle Clones doesn't sell pet toys — it creates high-priced custom plush replicas of customers' specific pets, costing $249 to $499 each. The mismatch suggested the plaintiff had no idea what the company actually sold.
Judge Vargas ordered expedited jurisdictional discovery to be completed within a month, followed by an evidentiary hearing. The core question: did this plaintiff genuinely intend to purchase anything from Cuddle Clones, or was the "intent to purchase" nothing more than a legal fiction to manufacture standing?
As Seyfarth Shaw noted in their analysis, this case "adds to the growing body of decisions in which federal courts in New York are intensifying their scrutiny of standing in ADA website cases."
Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson: 40 Products in One Week
The Cuddle Clones ruling didn't happen in isolation. Earlier, U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan of the Southern District of New York took similar action in Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC — granting the defendant's request for jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing on standing.
Judge Cronan's language was notably pointed. He wrote that "Article III standing is not merely a pleading hurdle" but rather "a core constitutional guardrail meant to ensure that federal courts decide only the rights of individuals." He added that "Article III does not permit plaintiffs to roam the country in search of wrongdoing and to reveal their discoveries in federal court absent a genuine, personal stake in the outcome."
What Raised the Court's Suspicion
- ▸The plaintiff filed dozens of "cookie-cutter, fill-in-the-blanks" complaints — the same template used by his firm for eight other plaintiffs
- ▸In a single week, the plaintiff allegedly attempted to purchase 40 products from dozens of websites, including a leather moto jacket, an "African Serpentine Necklace," a buffalo leather purse, a synthetic filled puffy comforter, and a "ProForce Combination Fist/Forearm Guard" from a martial arts store
- ▸The complaint claimed the plaintiff was drawn to Buffalo Jackson's leather jacket for its "craftsmanship, functionality, and durability" plus a 10% first-purchase discount — yet the plaintiff claimed the website was "largely inaccessible." How did he gather all that product information?
The court ordered limited discovery including the plaintiff's deposition and a forensic examination of the device or devices he used to access the website. If the plaintiff can't demonstrate genuine intent to purchase, the case will be dismissed for lack of standing.
Notably, Judge Cronan clarified that the ruling was not about whether ADA "testers" can have standing in general — some legitimately do. The concern was specifically about the implausibility of one person genuinely shopping for 40 wildly different products in a single week.
Black v. 3 Times 90: Dismissed for Lack of Standing
While the Cuddle Clones and Buffalo Jackson cases involve ongoing discovery, Eastern District of New York Judge Natasha Merle went further in Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc. — dismissing the case entirely, without leave to amend.
The plaintiff alleged he wanted to visit a Chinese restaurant "immediately" based on a friend's recommendation and that the restaurant's website was inaccessible. But the court found multiple problems with this story:
Why the Court Didn't Buy It
- ✗The plaintiff didn't explain how website barriers prevented him from visiting the physical restaurant
- ✗Despite claiming an urgent desire to try the food, the plaintiff allegedly "often frequents the neighborhoods" where the restaurants were located — but had never actually visited any of them
- ✗He didn't try to find menu or location information through any alternative means — despite the alleged urgency
- ✗The court noted that "there are countless options for dumplings and unique dining experiences in New York City" — but the complaint never explained why this particular restaurant was essential
- ✗A footnote revealed the plaintiff had filed 27 lawsuits in the previous year
Judge Merle found that the plaintiff failed to create "a plausible inference that the plaintiff intended to return to the website" — a requirement for standing in ADA Title III cases. The case was dismissed without granting leave to amend, meaning the plaintiff couldn't simply refile with better allegations.
The Pattern Courts Are Flagging
Across these cases (and others), federal courts have identified a consistent set of red flags that trigger heightened scrutiny:
📋
Template Complaints
Identical or near-identical complaints filed across dozens of cases, with only the defendant name and product swapped out. The same firm often uses the same template for multiple plaintiffs.
🏃
Implausible Shopping Sprees
Claims of attempting to purchase dozens of wildly unrelated products in days or weeks — from leather jackets to martial arts equipment to solar generators to pet plushies.
🔍
Internal Contradictions
Complaints that demonstrate detailed product knowledge while simultaneously claiming the website was too inaccessible to use. Or calling custom $499 pet replicas "pet toys."
🔄
No Alternative Efforts
Claims of urgently wanting a product or service but making zero effort to find information through any other channel — phone, maps, a friend, or any other website.
Article III Standing: The Constitutional Guardrail
The legal tool judges are using to push back is Article III standing — the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual "injury in fact" to bring a case in federal court. As Judge Cronan wrote in Buffalo Jackson, standing exists to "ensure that federal courts exercise their proper function in a limited and separated government."
For ADA website cases, this means a plaintiff must demonstrate:
Three Requirements for Standing
Injury in Fact
The plaintiff experienced a concrete and particularized injury — in website cases, that the accessibility barriers actually prevented them from doing something they genuinely wanted to do.
Causation
The injury was caused by the defendant's conduct — the website accessibility barriers specifically prevented the plaintiff's intended activity.
Redressability
A favorable court decision would actually remedy the injury — typically by requiring the business to fix the website. This also means the plaintiff must intend to return to the website.
When a plaintiff has filed 57 lawsuits over wildly unrelated products and described a $499 custom pet replica as a "pet toy," courts are increasingly willing to ask: did this person actually suffer an injury, or are they manufacturing claims to generate settlements?
The key shift is that judges are no longer simply accepting the complaint's allegations at face value. They're ordering discovery — including depositions and device forensics — to test whether the plaintiff's story holds up under scrutiny.
The State Court Shift: Serial Plaintiffs Adapt
The judicial pushback is having a measurable effect — but not necessarily the one you might expect. Serial plaintiff law firms aren't filing fewer cases. They're filing them in state courts instead, where standing requirements are less demanding.
The data tells the story. New York federal ADA Title III filings:
New York Federal ADA Filings: The Decline
Source: Seyfarth Shaw ADA Title III annual data. Note: Decline represents migration to state courts, not fewer total lawsuits.
That's a 54% decline from peak to 2025. But those lawsuits didn't disappear — they migrated. Seyfarth Shaw specifically noted that "the increased rigor has also contributed to a shift of filings into state court, where plaintiffs face less demanding standing requirements."
Meanwhile, other states are seeing surges. Florida is now #2 nationally with 1,823 filings. Illinois surged 65% to 659 cases — with Seyfarth Shaw noting that "some of the most prolific New York plaintiffs' lawyers have moved their work to this state."
For businesses, this means that tighter federal court scrutiny is just one front. The lawsuits are evolving, not diminishing.
Legislative Reform: States Take Action
Courts aren't the only ones pushing back. Several state legislatures have introduced bills to curb what they see as abusive ADA litigation, while attempting to preserve legitimate accessibility rights:
🏛️ Utah SB 68: Cure Period for Accessibility
Utah's bill would give businesses a 120-day cure period to fix accessibility issues after receiving notice, before a lawsuit can proceed. The bill also imposes filing limits on serial plaintiffs.
🏛️ Missouri HB 1674: Caps and Cure
Missouri's bill includes mandatory cure periods and limits the damages available in serial litigation scenarios. Missouri moved up to #5 nationally with 183 filings in 2025.
🏛️ California SB 84: Right to Cure
Even California — the #1 state for ADA filings with 3,252 cases — has introduced a cure period bill. SB 84 would give businesses 120 days to remediate accessibility issues after notice before facing monetary damages.
These bills share a common philosophy: businesses should have a chance to fix genuine accessibility problems before facing lawsuit-generated settlements. But disability rights advocates have concerns that cure periods could be exploited to delay compliance indefinitely. The debate continues. For our full analysis, see our guides on Utah and Missouri anti-ADA lawsuit bills and California SB 84.
Why Accessibility Still Matters: A Critical Distinction
This Is Not a "Get Out of Accessibility Free" Card
Courts are fighting abuse of the legal system, not the right to accessible websites. These rulings target plaintiffs who appear to manufacture claims for settlement revenue — not people with disabilities who genuinely can't access websites they need.
The distinction matters enormously, and it's one the judges themselves are careful to make. Judge Cronan explicitly noted that his ruling was not about whether ADA "testers" can have standing in general. Judge Vargas acknowledged that filing 57 lawsuits "was not itself disqualifying."
The reality is:
- ✓Websites are still required to be accessible under the ADA, the European Accessibility Act, and the upcoming ADA Title II April 2026 deadline
- ✓Legitimate plaintiffs with real injuries still have standing to sue — and will continue to
- ✓The FTC's $1 million fine against accessiBe shows that enforcement is targeting both frivolous plaintiffs and companies selling false accessibility promises
- ✓AI-powered pro se filings mean more legitimate plaintiffs can file claims without lawyers — the barrier to legitimate enforcement is lower than ever
Think of it this way: a fire department cracking down on false alarms doesn't mean fires stop happening. It means they can respond better to real emergencies. Courts fighting frivolous ADA lawsuits doesn't reduce the need for accessibility — it strengthens the legitimacy of real enforcement.
What Businesses Should Do Now
The best defense against any ADA lawsuit — serial or legitimate — is the same: make your website accessible. But the judicial trend does offer additional strategic considerations:
1. Proactive Compliance (The Best Defense)
Conduct regular accessibility audits against WCAG 2.1 AA standards. Fix critical issues (missing alt text, keyboard traps, form labels) first. Document everything — your compliance efforts are evidence if you're ever sued. Automated scanning tools can catch up to 50% of WCAG violations automatically.
2. Know When to Challenge Standing
If you receive an ADA demand letter or lawsuit, check whether the plaintiff has filed dozens of similar cases. Look for the red flags courts are flagging: boilerplate complaints, implausible product interest, contradictory allegations. In federal court, you may have grounds to request jurisdictional discovery.
3. Implement Ongoing Monitoring
As the DOJ made clear in the Fashion Nova case, "promise to be accessible" is no longer acceptable. Regular, documented monitoring of your website's accessibility is now the standard. Schedule monthly or quarterly scans, track your remediation progress, and keep records.
4. Claim Your Tax Credit
Small businesses (under $1M revenue or under 30 employees) can claim up to $5,000 annually via IRS Form 8826 for accessibility expenditures. Investing in compliance doesn't just protect you from lawsuits — it can reduce your tax burden.
5. Avoid Overlays (They're Lawsuit Magnets)
Accessibility overlay widgets have been proven ineffective and can actually increase your lawsuit risk. The FTC fined accessiBe $1 million for deceptive claims. Germany's BIK certification body has rejected overlay-based solutions. Don't rely on them.
6. Don't Wait for a Cure Period
Even if your state passes cure period legislation, proactive compliance is still smarter and cheaper than reactive remediation under a legal deadline. Companies that wait for a lawsuit to start fixing their websites spend 3–5x more on emergency remediation than those who invest in compliance proactively.
The Numbers: ADA Lawsuits by State (2025)
For reference, here's the complete top 10 from Seyfarth Shaw's 2025 data:
Highlighted: Illinois (up 65% YoY) and Indiana (newcomer to top 10). Source: Seyfarth Shaw, Feb 2026.
States with zero federal ADA Title III filings in 2025: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota.
The Bottom Line
The courts fighting serial ADA plaintiffs represent a healthy maturation of accessibility enforcement — not a retreat from it. The message is clear:
- →For serial plaintiffs: Courts will increasingly demand proof of genuine intent, not just boilerplate allegations
- →For businesses: This doesn't reduce your obligation — it means the lawsuits you face are more likely to be from people who genuinely couldn't use your website
- →For people with disabilities: Legitimate enforcement gets stronger as courts filter out claims that were never really about accessibility
The businesses that come out ahead are the ones investing in real accessibility — not hoping that judicial pushback against serial plaintiffs will somehow protect an inaccessible website.
Don't Wait for a Lawsuit to Find Your Accessibility Issues
RatedWithAI scans your website against WCAG standards and gives you a clear accessibility score with actionable fixes — before a plaintiff finds the problems first.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a serial ADA plaintiff?
A serial ADA plaintiff is someone who files dozens or hundreds of Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits alleging website inaccessibility. Some serial plaintiffs have filed over 50 lawsuits within weeks, often using identical boilerplate complaints. While ADA "testing" can be legitimate, courts are increasingly questioning whether these plaintiffs genuinely intended to use the websites they sued over.
Can an ADA website lawsuit be dismissed for lack of standing?
Yes. Federal courts require plaintiffs to demonstrate Article III standing — specifically, that they suffered an "injury in fact." In multiple recent cases, judges have dismissed ADA website lawsuits or ordered jurisdictional discovery after finding that serial plaintiffs could not credibly demonstrate they genuinely intended to make a purchase from the websites they sued.
What was the Cuddle Clones ADA lawsuit ruling?
In Fernandez v. Cuddle Clones, LLC (February 2026), SDNY Judge Jeanette A. Vargas sua sponte ordered jurisdictional discovery after a serial plaintiff who had filed 57 lawsuits — 22 within four days — claimed she wanted to buy a "pet toy" from Cuddle Clones. The company only sells custom pet plush replicas costing $249–$499, not generic pet toys. The judge questioned whether the plaintiff genuinely intended to make a purchase.
Are courts turning against ADA website accessibility lawsuits?
Courts are not turning against legitimate accessibility claims. They are specifically targeting serial plaintiffs who appear to file frivolous copy-paste lawsuits without genuine intent to use the websites. Legitimate accessibility barriers still violate the ADA, and businesses still need to maintain accessible websites. The judicial pushback targets the abuse of the legal system, not the rights of people with disabilities.
Why are serial ADA plaintiffs shifting to state courts?
Federal courts have increasingly strict Article III standing requirements that demand proof of genuine injury. State courts generally have less rigorous standing requirements. As federal judges in New York and elsewhere have cracked down on serial filers, many plaintiff firms have shifted their filings to state courts — contributing to a 54% decline in New York federal ADA filings from 2022 to 2025.
How many ADA website lawsuits were filed in 2025?
According to Seyfarth Shaw's annual tracking, 8,667 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in or removed to federal courts in 2025, a 2% decrease from 2024. California led with 3,252 filings, followed by Florida (1,823) and New York (1,471). The total remains three times higher than when tracking began in 2013.
Does my business still need an accessible website if courts are fighting serial plaintiffs?
Absolutely yes. Courts fighting serial plaintiff abuse does NOT reduce your obligation to have an accessible website. The ADA still requires that your website be accessible to people with disabilities. Legitimate plaintiffs with real accessibility barriers will still have standing to sue. The judicial pushback targets the mechanics of how some serial plaintiffs abuse the system — not the underlying accessibility requirements.
What should businesses do to defend against serial ADA website lawsuits?
The best defense is proactive compliance: conduct regular accessibility audits against WCAG 2.1 AA standards, fix issues promptly, maintain documentation of your compliance efforts, and implement ongoing monitoring. If you receive a demand letter or lawsuit, check whether the plaintiff has filed dozens of similar cases — this may provide grounds to challenge standing. But remember: the best lawsuit defense is never getting sued in the first place by maintaining an accessible website.