RatedWithAI
Accessibility scanner
Repeat ADA Lawsuits: Why One Settlement Isn't Enough in 2026
You settled an ADA website lawsuit. You paid the legal fees, fixed some issues, and moved on. Six months later, you're sued again — by a different plaintiff, over different barriers, in a different court. Sound unlikely? It's happening to nearly half of all ADA website lawsuit defendants. Here's the data, the pattern, and the only way to break the cycle.
Table of Contents
The Repeat Lawsuit Problem by the Numbers
ADA website lawsuits are not one-time events. Data consistently shows that a significant percentage of businesses targeted for accessibility violations end up facing multiple lawsuits — often from different plaintiffs, law firms, and jurisdictions.
According to UsableNet's annual digital accessibility lawsuit tracking — the most comprehensive dataset available — approximately 46% of federal ADA website lawsuit defendants in recent years have been repeat targets. That's nearly 1 in 2 businesses that thought they'd resolved their accessibility issues, only to be sued again.
In 2025, 8,667 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal courts, according to Seyfarth Shaw's 13-year tracking study. This figure doesn't include thousands more filed in state courts — particularly in New York, where serial plaintiffs have shifted filings to avoid stricter federal standing requirements.
📊 ADA Title III Lawsuits: 13-Year Federal Trend
Source: Seyfarth Shaw LLP Annual ADA Title III Lawsuit Report (Federal courts only. State court filings add thousands more.)
The federal numbers only tell part of the story. As Seyfarth Shaw reports, New York federal filings dropped from 3,173 in 2022 to 1,471 in 2025 — but not because lawsuits decreased. Serial plaintiffs simply moved to state courts, where standing requirements are less demanding. The lawsuit volume didn't disappear; it migrated.
Why Settlements Don't Protect You
Here's the uncomfortable truth that most ADA defense attorneys won't highlight during settlement negotiations: a settlement only resolves the claims between the named plaintiff and your business. It creates zero protection against future lawsuits from other plaintiffs.
Unlike some areas of law where a court ruling creates precedent that shields a defendant, ADA website lawsuits operate in a fundamentally different landscape:
No Preclusive Effect
A settlement with Plaintiff A doesn't bar Plaintiff B from suing over the same or similar barriers. Each plaintiff has independent standing to assert their own rights under the ADA.
Different Barriers, Different Claims
Your website has hundreds or thousands of pages. A settlement might address barriers on pages the first plaintiff tested. A second plaintiff may test entirely different pages and find new issues.
No Safe Harbor Period
There's no legally mandated grace period after a settlement. A new lawsuit can be filed the day after you settle the previous one, targeting newly introduced barriers or ones the first suit missed.
State vs. Federal Split
A federal settlement doesn't prevent state court lawsuits under state disability rights laws (like California's Unruh Civil Rights Act), which often carry additional statutory damages of $4,000+ per visit.
Think of it this way: if your building had a broken ramp and you fixed it after a lawsuit, you wouldn't be protected if the elevator also lacked braille buttons. Your website is the same — it has hundreds of potential accessibility barriers across every page, form, image, video, and interactive element.
The Five Ways Businesses Get Sued Again
Based on analysis of repeat ADA website lawsuits, there are five primary patterns that lead to businesses facing multiple lawsuits:
Partial Remediation
The most common cause. The first settlement required fixing specific barriers identified in the complaint. But WCAG 2.1 Level AA has 50+ success criteria applied across every page of your website. Fixing alt text on product images doesn't address keyboard navigation, color contrast, form labels, video captions, ARIA attributes, or dozens of other requirements. The next plaintiff simply finds the barriers you didn't fix.
Website Changes Introduce New Barriers
Your website isn't static. Every new product listing, blog post, marketing campaign, homepage redesign, or third-party widget introduces potential accessibility barriers. A CMS update can break heading hierarchy. A new payment processor can introduce inaccessible forms. A marketing team's hero banner can lack alt text. Without ongoing monitoring, these regressions go undetected until the next lawsuit.
Third-Party Content and Integrations
Chat widgets, analytics trackers, social media embeds, review platforms, payment processors, cookie consent banners — each third-party integration on your site is a potential accessibility liability. You're legally responsible for their accessibility on YOUR website, even though you didn't build them. Third parties update their code without notifying you, potentially introducing new barriers at any time.
Overlay Widget False Security
Some businesses install an accessibility overlay widget after their first lawsuit, believing it resolves the issue. It doesn't. Overlays don't fix underlying code problems — they layer a cosmetic interface on top of broken accessibility. The FTC fined overlay provider accessiBe $1 million for deceptive compliance claims. Plaintiff attorneys have begun specifically targeting businesses using overlays.
Different Plaintiff, Same Barriers
Serial plaintiff law firms operate independently. Firm A's settlement with you doesn't communicate to Firm B, Firm C, or the dozens of other plaintiff operations trolling websites for barriers. A different plaintiff can sue over the exact same barriers you thought you'd resolved — especially if the remediation was incomplete or has since regressed.
Serial Plaintiffs: The Scale of the Problem
Understanding the repeat lawsuit problem requires understanding the serial plaintiff ecosystem. A small number of plaintiffs and law firms are responsible for a disproportionate share of all ADA website lawsuits — and they're getting more systematic.
Recent court filings reveal the industrial scale of serial ADA website litigation:
🔍 Inside a Serial Plaintiff's Operation
Fernandez v. Cuddle Clones, LLC (Feb 2026)
A single plaintiff filed 57 ADA website lawsuits. Within a four-day period, she allegedly attempted to purchase items from enough websites to generate 22 separate lawsuits. Her complaint described Cuddle Clones' products as "pet toys" — but the company actually sells custom plush replicas of pets priced at $249-$499. Judge Jeanette A. Vargas ordered jurisdictional discovery sua sponte (on her own initiative) to determine if the plaintiff genuinely intended to make a purchase.
Source: Seyfarth Shaw, ADA Title III Blog, February 23, 2026
Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co. (May 2025)
A plaintiff filed dozens of "cookie-cutter, fill-in-the-blanks" complaints alleging he attempted to purchase 40 products from dozens of websites in a single week. Items ranged from a leather moto jacket to an African Serpentine Necklace to a martial arts forearm guard. The same template was used in hundreds of lawsuits filed by the same firm on behalf of eight other plaintiffs. Judge John P. Cronan ordered a forensic examination of the plaintiff's devices to verify he actually visited the websites.
Source: Seyfarth Shaw, ADA Title III Blog, May 2025
Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc. (May 2025)
A plaintiff claimed he visited a Chinese restaurant's website because of a friend's recommendation and wanted to visit "immediately" — yet despite frequenting the restaurants' neighborhoods, he never actually visited any location. He had filed 27 lawsuits in the previous year. Judge Natasha Merle dismissed the case without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff hadn't established a genuine intent to use the business.
Source: Seyfarth Shaw, ADA Title III Blog, May 2025
These cases illustrate both sides of the repeat lawsuit problem. On one hand, serial plaintiffs are filing at industrial scale — sometimes dozens of lawsuits per week — which means any business with accessibility barriers is a potential target multiple times. On the other hand, the underlying accessibility barriers these lawsuits target are real. Even if a plaintiff's motives are questioned, the barriers that enabled the lawsuit still exist on your website.
Courts in New York are beginning to push back on serial plaintiffs with more rigorous standing requirements — but this has simply caused plaintiffs to migrate to state courts and other jurisdictions. California (3,252 federal lawsuits in 2025), Florida (1,823), and Illinois (659, up 65% year-over-year) are now absorbing the overflow.
The Fashion Nova Warning: What Happens Without Monitoring
The Fashion Nova ADA class action is a cautionary tale of what happens when a business treats accessibility as a one-time fix rather than an ongoing obligation.
After a class action lawsuit, Fashion Nova proposed a settlement that included:
- $2.43 million for the class of affected users
- $2.52 million for plaintiff's attorneys (more than the class itself)
- An accessibility audit — but it was optional, not mandatory
- Zero ongoing monitoring requirements
The Department of Justice intervened to reject the settlement, specifically criticizing the lack of a monitoring mechanism. The DOJ's position was clear: a settlement without ongoing compliance verification doesn't adequately protect people with disabilities — and it virtually guarantees future violations.
💡 The DOJ's Message
When the Department of Justice intervenes to reject a proposed ADA settlement for lacking monitoring provisions, it sends a clear signal to every business: the federal government considers ongoing monitoring a baseline requirement, not an optional add-on. This precedent makes it likely that future settlements will be held to higher monitoring standards — and businesses without monitoring programs will be more vulnerable to both initial lawsuits and repeat litigation.
In an ironic twist, the plaintiff's own law firm's website was reportedly not fully accessible — underscoring how pervasive and persistent web accessibility barriers are, even for organizations actively litigating accessibility cases.
Why Overlays Make Repeat Lawsuits More Likely
After their first lawsuit, some businesses install an accessibility overlay widget thinking it will prevent future litigation. The data shows the opposite: overlays may actually increase your risk of repeat lawsuits.
Here's why:
- Overlays don't fix code. They add a UI layer on top of broken HTML. Screen readers interact with the underlying code, not the overlay. WCAG violations in your source code persist regardless of what the overlay claims.
- The FTC has spoken. In 2025, the FTC fined accessiBe $1 million for making deceptive compliance claims. Using an overlay doesn't constitute "good faith" compliance effort in court.
- Plaintiff attorneys target overlay users. Some law firms have begun specifically seeking out websites running overlay widgets, because the overlay itself signals the business knows about accessibility requirements but hasn't properly addressed them. This undermines a "we didn't know" defense.
- Overlays create a false sense of security. After installing an overlay, businesses stop investing in actual remediation. Meanwhile, every website update introduces new barriers that the overlay doesn't address.
The Ongoing Monitoring Defense
If settlements don't protect you and overlays make things worse, what actually works? The answer is straightforward: continuous accessibility monitoring combined with documented remediation.
An ongoing monitoring program doesn't just catch issues before they become lawsuits — it creates a documented record that serves as your strongest defense if you are sued:
Proactive Detection
Automated scans catch accessibility regressions within hours or days of introduction — not months later when a plaintiff's automated crawler finds them.
Remediation Evidence
Timestamped scan reports show a history of issues found and fixed. This demonstrates good faith effort and ongoing commitment to accessibility — powerful evidence in court.
Regression Prevention
When developers or content creators introduce new barriers (new pages, updated forms, third-party widgets), monitoring flags the regression before it becomes a legal liability.
Compliance Trending
Track your WCAG compliance score over time. An upward trend demonstrates commitment. A sudden drop alerts you to investigate — maybe a CMS update broke something.
While no monitoring program guarantees zero lawsuits, it dramatically reduces your exposure. If a plaintiff's attorney finds that your website has a documented history of regular scans, consistent remediation, and improving compliance scores, the case becomes significantly less attractive to pursue — especially compared to businesses with no monitoring at all.
Building a Litigation-Resistant Accessibility Program
Based on analysis of successful defenses against repeat ADA lawsuits, here's a framework for building an accessibility program that minimizes your risk:
Phase 1: Baseline Audit (Week 1)
- • Run a comprehensive automated scan of your entire site
- • Conduct manual testing on top 10 user flows (homepage, product pages, checkout, forms, contact)
- • Test with at least two screen readers (NVDA and VoiceOver)
- • Document your baseline WCAG compliance score
- • Prioritize issues by severity: Critical → Major → Minor
Phase 2: Critical Remediation (Weeks 2-4)
- • Fix all Critical and Major WCAG violations identified in audit
- • Address the top 10 most common automated scan failures
- • Ensure all images have appropriate alt text
- • Verify keyboard navigation works on all major user flows
- • Test and fix form labels, error messages, and focus management
- • Document every fix with dates and descriptions
Phase 3: Ongoing Monitoring (Ongoing)
- • Schedule automated scans weekly (minimum) or daily (recommended)
- • Set up alerts for any new Critical or Major violations
- • Scan all new pages and content before or immediately after publishing
- • Re-test after every CMS update, theme change, or plugin installation
- • Re-test after any third-party integration change
- • Conduct quarterly comprehensive manual audits
Phase 4: Team Training & Process (Quarterly)
- • Train content creators on accessible content authoring (alt text, heading structure, link text)
- • Train developers on WCAG requirements and testing tools
- • Add accessibility checkpoints to your development/content publishing workflow
- • Maintain an accessibility policy document (publish it on your website)
- • Designate an accessibility coordinator or team
The Real Cost: One-Time Fix vs Continuous Monitoring
Businesses often resist ongoing monitoring because they see it as an ongoing expense. But compare it to the alternative:
The math is clear: continuous monitoring at $100-500/month is dramatically cheaper than even a single repeat lawsuit. And unlike a settlement, monitoring actually prevents the problem from recurring.
Break the Repeat Lawsuit Cycle
Our AI-powered accessibility scanner checks your website against WCAG 2.1 Level AA in under 60 seconds. Get your compliance score, identify critical issues, and start monitoring before the next lawsuit finds you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you get sued for ADA website accessibility more than once?
Does settling an ADA lawsuit prevent future lawsuits?
Why do businesses get sued multiple times for ADA website violations?
How many ADA website lawsuits are filed each year?
Do accessibility overlays protect against repeat ADA lawsuits?
What is the average cost of an ADA website lawsuit settlement?
How can I prevent repeat ADA website lawsuits?
Are serial ADA plaintiffs legitimate?
Don't Wait for the Second Lawsuit
If you've already settled an ADA website lawsuit — or if you want to prevent the first one — our free scanner gives you an instant compliance score. Set up ongoing monitoring and break the cycle before it starts.