More Major Corporations Sued Over Website Accessibility

ADA Title III website accessibility lawsuits show no sign of slowing down. Since 2021, plaintiffs have filed more than 4,000 lawsuits every single year — and the trend is accelerating. Every business owner should know these high-profile cases involving well-known brands.

ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Real Cases Every Business Owner Should Know

Target Corporation

In one of the earliest and most consequential web accessibility lawsuits on record, the National Federation of the Blind sued Target in 2006. Specifically, they alleged that blind customers relying on screen readers couldn’t use the retailer’s website at all. As a result, Target settled for $6 million and committed to a full accessibility remediation plan. The ruling set a powerful precedent: major retailers cannot use physical stores as an excuse for inaccessible digital experiences. To this day, courts still cite the Target case as a foundational benchmark.

Walmart

The world’s largest retailer has faced multiple rounds of web accessibility litigation. For example, lawsuits in 2018 and again in 2021 alleged ADA Title III violations covering both Walmart’s website and its self-checkout kiosks. Complaints included poor navigation, bad link text, and other WCAG failures that prevented users with visual disabilities from completing basic tasks — including shopping online. Consequently, Walmart’s repeated exposure to litigation highlights a critical lesson: achieving compliance once isn’t enough. In other words, websites need ongoing accessibility monitoring, especially as content and features continuously change.

H&R Block

In 2013, the National Federation of the Blind sued H&R Block for making its website and mobile app inaccessible to blind and visually impaired users. The stakes were especially high. After all, tax filing is a time-sensitive, legally required activity that every American must complete. The lawsuit settled for $100,000 in damages. In addition, it produced a formal consent decree requiring H&R Block to redesign its online tools to meet WCAG 2.0 AA standards, appoint a Web Accessibility Coordinator, and establish an internal accessibility committee. Ultimately, this case remains a landmark example of how accessibility barriers can affect fundamental civic participation — not just convenience.

Hasbro

Children’s toy manufacturer Hasbro faced a web accessibility lawsuit in 2023 — and not just under the ADA. In fact, the plaintiff also alleged violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The complaint identified missing alt text on images, missing descriptive links, and inaccessible forms — all blocking screen reader users from browsing and buying products. As a result, the Hasbro case is a stark reminder that companies operating in states like New York face compounded legal exposure under both federal and state law.

Sweetgreen

Fast-casual chain Sweetgreen faced a lawsuit at the start of 2024 under both the ADA and New York Human Rights Law. The plaintiff alleged multiple WCAG violations that blocked blind and low-vision users from navigating the website and placing online orders. What makes this case particularly notable is that it wasn’t Sweetgreen’s first offense. In fact, the company had already settled a nearly identical lawsuit in 2016 and agreed to bring its website into compliance. Nevertheless, the repeat lawsuit illustrates a persistent challenge: many companies treat accessibility as a one-time fix. As new content and features roll out, sites fall back out of conformance.

KitchenAid

In early 2023, KitchenAid — owned by Whirlpool Corporation — faced a class-action accessibility lawsuit with a fresh legal argument. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that website barriers didn’t just inconvenience visually impaired customers. Instead, they forced those customers to spend extra time and money visiting physical stores to complete purchases others could make online in minutes. This argument — that inaccessible websites impose a real financial burden — represents a sophisticated and evolving interpretation of ADA harm. Furthermore, it signals that courts are increasingly willing to recognize the true cost of digital exclusion.

Five Guys

Fast-food chain Five Guys joined Burger King and Domino’s as high-profile examples of the food service industry’s ongoing accessibility challenges. The complaint focused on the chain’s website failing to work with screen readers. As a result, visually impaired users couldn’t view menus, locate restaurants, or place orders online. Overall, restaurants account for roughly 11% of all ADA website lawsuits filed in recent years, making food service one of the most heavily targeted industries.

The Bottom Line

The pattern across all these cases is consistent. Barriers to screen readers, missing image alt text, inaccessible forms, and broken keyboard navigation keep appearing — and keep costing companies millions. Moreover, the legal exposure is only growing.

What do the numbers tell us? In the first six months of 2025 alone, plaintiffs filed more than 2,000 ADA website accessibility lawsuits — a 37% increase over the same period in 2024. Furthermore, courts and the Department of Justice continue to rely on WCAG 2.1/2.2 as the benchmark for accessible websites.

The message for businesses of every size is clear: digital accessibility is not optional. It’s not a one-time fix. And it doesn’t only apply to the largest brands. Under the ADA, your website is a place of public accommodation. Therefore, the law requires that everyone — regardless of ability — can use it.

Making your website accessible protects your business from costly litigation. It also opens your brand to a broader audience. And ultimately, it demonstrates a genuine commitment to inclusion that today’s consumers increasingly expect.