3.21.2024
Employers take note: web accessibility lawsuits are on the rise. Many of these lawsuits were filed by website “testers,” individuals who access business websites to determine whether they are compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in various ways.
In 2023, approximately 4600 lawsuits regarding website accessibility were filed, an increase of more than 60% from 2022. Most of these ADA website accessibility lawsuits were filed in New York courts. New Jersey business owners should note that a business does not need to be located in New York in order to be sued; it only needs to have customers from New York. Moreover, the first federal website accessibility lawsuits were filed in New Jersey in 2023.
A Plaintiff Tester’s Case Goes to the Supreme Court
On December 5, 2023, the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) decided Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, a case that concerned whether an ADA website accessibility plaintiff tester had standing to sue a hotel because its website did not comply with the ADA’s Reservation Rule.
A plaintiff has “standing” when the plaintiff has suffered a harm so that the plaintiff has a right to “stand” before the court.
The Reservation Rule requires hotels to provide information about the hotel and services in enough detail so that a given hotel or room guest can determine whether the hotel services meet that person’s accessibility needs.
The plaintiff tester, Deborah Laufer, who lives in Florida, had no intention of making an actual reservation or staying at the hotel run by Acheson Hotels in Maine. She tested the Acheson Hotels’ website to see if it complied with the Reservation Rule. Since Ms. Laufer did not intend to stay at the hotel in Maine, the question for the Supreme Court to resolve was whether the Ms. Laufer did in fact suffer sufficient injury to have standing.
Before the Court had an opportunity to decide the case on the merits, Ms. Laufer withdrew her case because her attorney was investigated and then suspended from the practice of law for engaging in improprieties. Ms. Laufer represented to the Court that she would not file any similar lawsuits.
Web Accessibility Testers Continue to File Lawsuits
The Supreme Court held that the Acheson plaintiff tester’s suit was moot because she withdrew it. The Court then remanded the suit to the lower court to be vacated and dismissed. This decision leaves the issue of standing for plaintiff testers to be determined in a future ruling. In the meanwhile, plaintiff testers can continue to file suits over accessibility of websites, even if they never intend to use the goods or services provided by the businesses’ websites whom they visit.
TAKEAWAY: Employers should ensure that their websites are ADA compliant to avoid the risk of a plaintiff tester fling a lawsuit against their business. If you are an employer and have questions about ADA website compliance or any federal or New Jersey employment law, contact Stephanie Gironda or any member of the Wilentz Employment Law Team.
Tags: Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) • Employer Liability • New York Employers • New Jersey Guidance for Employers
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.
