Fashion Nova ADA Settlement Rejected by DOJ: Why Website Accessibility Monitoring Matters

⚖️

Key Takeaways

1The DOJ opposed a $5.15M settlement because it lacked monitoring and enforcement mechanisms
2Attorneys stood to receive $2.52M vs. $2.43M for the actual class members
3The settlement website itself was inaccessible to blind users
4"Promise to be accessible" settlements are no longer enough — the DOJ wants verifiable monitoring
5Class Counsel had filed 500+ identical lawsuits — DOJ flagged serial litigation pattern

What Happened: The Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Case

In 2020, a legally blind plaintiff named Alcazar filed suit against Fashion Nova, the California-based fast fashion retailer, alleging that the company's website was not accessible to blind individuals using screen readers. The lawsuit cited violations of both Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

By 2022, the court had certified both a nationwide class and a California subclass. After years of litigation, the parties reached a proposed settlement: Fashion Nova would pay approximately $5.15 million total — $2.43 million to California class members (capped at $4,000 per household) and $2.52 million in attorneys' fees and costs.

The settlement also included a generic promise that Fashion Nova would modify its website "as needed" to achieve "substantial conformance" with WCAG 2.1 guidelines within 180 days.

On February 2, 2026, the DOJ filed a formal Statement of Interest opposing the settlement. The court heard arguments on February 12, 2026, and a decision is pending.

The DOJ's Three Core Objections

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division was blunt: "A class action under the ADA should, above all else, secure greater accessibility for consumers with disabilities. Congress intended the Department and Courts to be skeptical of settlements that instead enrich private counsel."

1. No Monitoring or Enforcement Mechanism

The proposed settlement required Fashion Nova to make its website accessible — but included no way to verify that they actually did it. The agreement stated that Class Counsel "may, but is not required to" perform an accessibility audit of the website at their own cost. In practice, this meant nobody was watching.

The DOJ called this out explicitly: the injunctive relief was "a mere recitation of the obligation" with "no confirmation or enforcement mechanism." In other words, Fashion Nova could sign the settlement, pay the money, and never actually fix their website — and nobody would know.

💡 This is the most significant part of the ruling for businesses. The DOJ is signaling that "promise to fix it" is no longer acceptable — they want verifiable, ongoing monitoring.

2. Attorneys Paid More Than the Class

The numbers tell the story: plaintiffs' attorneys stood to receive $2.52 million in fees and costs, while the actual class members — the blind and low-vision individuals harmed by the inaccessible website — would split $2.43 million.

The DOJ didn't mince words, stating that it "opposes 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."

Reuters reported that this fee imbalance was one of the DOJ's most pointed criticisms, noting that settlements should prioritize the rights of people with disabilities over legal fees.

3. The Settlement Website Was Inaccessible

In what legal commentators called a moment of "exquisite irony," the DOJ discovered that the claims website itself — the website blind class members needed to submit claims to receive compensation — was not accessible to screen readers.

The DOJ engaged a digital accessibility consultant to inspect the settlement administrator's website and identified multiple accessibility barriers. The very mechanism designed to compensate people harmed by an inaccessible website was itself inaccessible.

This wasn't just embarrassing — it underscored the DOJ's point that the settlement prioritized payments over actual accessibility outcomes.

500+ Identical Lawsuits: The Serial Litigation Problem

The DOJ's Statement of Interest included a striking detail about the plaintiffs' legal team. According to the DOJ, Class Counsel had "filed the same exact lawsuit, on behalf of repeat plaintiffs" in over 500 cases between 2019 and 2023, "with the vast majority ending in a non-disclosed individual settlement."

The lead plaintiff, Alcazar, had personally 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 been a criticism of ADA web accessibility enforcement. While businesses should absolutely maintain accessible websites, the DOJ's willingness to call out serial litigation signals a shift toward demanding that lawsuits produce real accessibility improvements, not just financial settlements.

ADA Web Accessibility Lawsuits by the Numbers

8,667

Federal ADA lawsuits filed in 2025

500+

Identical lawsuits from Fashion Nova's Class Counsel

$5.15M

Proposed settlement amount rejected by DOJ

What This Means for Every Business with a Website

The Fashion Nova case establishes a new baseline for what the DOJ considers an acceptable resolution to an ADA web accessibility lawsuit. Here's what changes:

"We'll Fix It" Promises Are Dead

Generic commitments to "modify the website as needed" no longer satisfy the DOJ. Settlements — and by extension, proactive compliance efforts — need concrete, verifiable steps. Think documented audits, scheduled scans, and measurable metrics.

Ongoing Monitoring Is Now Expected

The DOJ's primary objection wasn't that Fashion Nova hadn't fixed their website — it was that nobody was required to check. The message is clear: one-time accessibility fixes aren't enough. Websites change constantly — new pages, updated designs, third-party widgets — and monitoring needs to be continuous.

Proactive Beats Reactive (and It's Cheaper)

Fashion Nova spent five years in litigation, facing a $5.15M settlement that the DOJ considers inadequate. The cost of proactive monitoring? A fraction of that. Continuous accessibility scanning costs businesses as little as $29 per month — compared to tens or hundreds of thousands in legal defense costs.

Documentation Is Your Best Defense

If Fashion Nova had been running regular accessibility scans and could show a documented history of improvements, the settlement likely would have looked very different. Courts and the DOJ want to see good faith effort — and that means records. Scan reports, remediation logs, compliance scores over time.

The "Monitoring Gap" in Web Accessibility

The Fashion Nova case exposes a systemic problem in how businesses approach web accessibility: the monitoring gap. Here's how it typically plays out:

The Audit

A business receives a demand letter or lawsuit. They hire an accessibility consultant for a one-time audit. Cost: $5,000–$25,000.

The Fix

Developers remediate the identified issues. The website passes the audit. Everyone celebrates. Cost: $10,000–$50,000 depending on severity.

The Drift

Over the next 6–12 months, the website evolves. New products, updated pages, redesigned components, third-party embeds. Nobody is checking for accessibility. Issues accumulate silently.

The Repeat Lawsuit

Another demand letter arrives. The cycle begins again — except now the business has no documentation showing they tried to maintain compliance.

This is exactly the cycle the DOJ wants to break. Their objection to the Fashion Nova settlement wasn't just about that specific case — it was a statement that accessibility without monitoring is accessibility theater.

The Real Cost: Lawsuits vs. Monitoring

❌ The Reactive Path

•Legal defense: $25,000–$100,000+
•Settlement costs: $10,000–$5,000,000+
•Emergency remediation: $10,000–$50,000
•Brand damage: Incalculable
•Timeline: 2–5 years of litigation (Fashion Nova: 5 years)

Total: $45,000–$5,000,000+

✅ The Proactive Path

•Automated monitoring: $29–$99/month
•Continuous WCAG compliance tracking
•Documented proof of ongoing good faith effort
•Early detection of regressions before they become lawsuit targets
•Timeline: Instant setup, continuous protection

Total: $348–$1,188/year

The Bigger Picture: Why 2026 Is a Turning Point

The Fashion Nova case doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's part of a broader shift in how web accessibility is enforced in the United States:

📅 April 24, 2026: The ADA Title II Deadline

All state and local government websites must meet WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. This hard deadline is less than 60 days away, and the DOJ's scrutiny of Fashion Nova shows they're taking enforcement seriously across both public and private sectors.

⚖️ State Legislative Pushback

States like Missouri and Utah are introducing legislation to curb serial ADA litigation — with cure periods and counter-sue provisions. But these laws often require businesses to demonstrate they're actively trying to remediate. A 90-day safe harbor is useless if you can't show documented progress.

🏛️ Wisconsin Expands ADA to Online-Only Stores

Recent court rulings in Wisconsin ( Cazares v. Acro Int'l and Hippe v. Me Too LLC) established that even online-only retailers with no physical stores must comply with the ADA. The court ordered 180-day compliance deadlines. If you sell anything online, you're covered.

📈 8,667 Federal Lawsuits in 2025

ADA web accessibility lawsuits continue to rise. While the DOJ is pushing back on settlements that don't produce real results, the volume of lawsuits isn't slowing down. The window for "we'll deal with it if we get sued" is closing rapidly.

The Footnote That Shook Legal Twitter

Buried in the DOJ's Statement of Interest was a footnote that accessibility lawyers immediately flagged. The DOJ stated:

"The 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."

As Seyfarth Shaw noted, this seems inconsistent with the DOJ's own history of referencing WCAG 2.0 AA and 2.1 AA in settlement agreements. The practical impact? WCAG remains the de facto standard, but businesses should understand that compliance is about actual accessibility for people with disabilities — not just checking boxes against a technical specification.

What Your Business Should Do Right Now

Whether you're a small business owner, a large retailer, or a government agency, the Fashion Nova case sends a clear message. Here's your action plan:

Run a Free Accessibility Scan Today

Find out where you stand. A free scan will identify your most critical WCAG violations and give you an overall accessibility score. This is your baseline.

Set Up Continuous Monitoring

Don't let your accessibility degrade silently. Automated monitoring catches regressions as they happen — new pages, design changes, third-party widget updates — so you can fix issues before they become lawsuits.

Document Everything

Keep records of your scans, remediation efforts, and compliance improvements over time. If you're ever targeted by a lawsuit, this documentation demonstrates good faith effort — the kind of evidence the DOJ wants to see.

Prioritize Critical Issues

Not all accessibility issues carry equal weight. Focus on the issues that affect the most users: missing alt text, keyboard navigation, form labels, color contrast, and screen reader compatibility.

Don't Rely on Overlays

Accessibility overlays and widgets have been widely criticized by the disability community and don't protect against lawsuits. In fact, multiple lawsuits have been filed against companies using overlay products. The DOJ's Fashion Nova objection reinforces that real accessibility requires real technical work, not a JavaScript band-aid.

Don't Be the Next Fashion Nova

The DOJ has made it clear: promise-based compliance is over. Ongoing monitoring isn't optional — it's expected. RatedWithAI provides continuous WCAG compliance scanning with documented reports, starting at $29/month.

Scan Your Website Free →View Monitoring Plans

Free scan includes WCAG 2.1 AA compliance check · No credit card required · Results in under 60 seconds

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the Fashion Nova ADA lawsuit about?

Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc. was a 2020 class action lawsuit alleging that Fashion Nova's website was not accessible to blind and low-vision users, violating the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. After the court certified nationwide and California classes in 2022, the parties proposed a $5.15M settlement that the DOJ subsequently opposed.

Why did the DOJ reject the settlement?

The DOJ argued the settlement was unfair because: (1) the injunctive relief lacked monitoring or enforcement mechanisms, (2) attorneys' fees ($2.52M) exceeded the amount going to class members ($2.43M), and (3) the settlement claims website itself was inaccessible to screen reader users.

Does this ruling affect my business?

Yes. While this is a specific case, the DOJ's objection sets a precedent for how future ADA web accessibility settlements will be evaluated. Courts will likely require monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in future settlements, and businesses that can show ongoing compliance efforts will be in a much stronger position.

What is website accessibility monitoring?

Website accessibility monitoring involves automated, recurring scans of your website against WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) standards. Unlike one-time audits, monitoring catches new issues as your website changes — new pages, design updates, third-party widget changes — and alerts you before those issues become legal liabilities.

How much does accessibility monitoring cost?

Automated accessibility monitoring typically costs between $29 and $249 per month depending on the provider and plan. RatedWithAI starts at $29/month for weekly scans with compliance reports. Compare that to the $5.15M Fashion Nova settlement or the average $25,000–$100,000 in legal defense costs for an ADA lawsuit.

Is WCAG 2.1 AA the legal standard for web accessibility?

The ADA doesn't specify a technical standard, but WCAG 2.1 AA is the de facto standard used in virtually all settlements and DOJ agreements. Notably, the DOJ included a footnote in the Fashion Nova case stating it "does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard" under Title III — but in practice, WCAG 2.1 AA remains the benchmark courts and regulators use.

Sources

Department of Justice — Statement of Interest, Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc. (February 2, 2026)
Seyfarth Shaw — DOJ Throws Wrench Into Proposed ADA Website Accessibility Class Settlement (February 2026)
Reuters — An ADA Class Action Settlement Draws DOJ Scrutiny (February 4, 2026)
EcomBack — Fashion Nova Case: DOJ Urges Court to Reject Proposed Settlement (February 19, 2026)

Legal

Fashion Nova's $5.15M ADA Settlement Rejected by DOJ: Why Monitoring Is Now Non-Negotiable