ADA Lawsuit Watch: Same-Day Filing Bursts Reach Armani, La-Z-Boy, and Carvana

What's new

The big story in this batch is not one industry. It is the way the lawsuits arrive: in bursts. Several plaintiffs filed a stack of cases on a single day, each one aimed at a different brand. Compared with our last roundup, which featured a bank and two colleges, this group swings back to consumer brands and goods sold online.

The largest burst landed in the Northern District of Illinois. On October 20, 2026, a plaintiff named Randolph filed six cases there, including Randolph v. Garden of Life LLC, Randolph v. Fresh, Inc., and Randolph v. Rosec Jewels LLC, a jewelry seller. A separate case, Battle v. Arbor Home, LLC, was filed in the same court that same day.

Florida had its own burst. On November 2, 2026, a plaintiff named Pagan filed three cases in the Southern District of Florida against a fashion brand, a furniture retailer, and an eyewear retailer: Pagan v. Giorgio Armani Corporation, Pagan v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, and Pagan v. Luxottica Of America INC.. Furniture and eyeglasses are a new twist next to the clothing brands this series usually tracks.

In New York, a plaintiff named Zhang appears on five filings in the Southern District: three on October 16 (including Zhang v. Bath and Body Works Direct, Inc. and Zhang v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.) and two on November 5 (including Zhang v. Swarovski Digital Business USA Inc.). One company even drew two suits from two different plaintiffs on the same day: Jenkins v. David Peyser Sportswear, Inc. and Soto v. David Peyser Sportswear, Inc., both dated November 9.

A few other names stand out. Proveyer v. Carvana, LLC, filed in Florida on October 13, targets a business the records describe as primarily online. A gum maker shows up in Black v. Rev Gum, LLC, a beauty supply chain in Thomas v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, and the filings even reach the Western District of New York in Ortiz v. Western Razor LLC.

One honest caveat: these 32 cases carry filing dates from October 13 to November 9, 2026, and surfaced in court records only recently. None of the dockets list the specific barriers, and many summaries say a website claim is likely but not confirmed. So read this batch as a strong pattern, not a certainty about every single case.

What the lawsuits claim

New to this series? Here is the background in two sentences. These are lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), and each one is only a claim made by the person suing, not a finding by a judge. Website suits like these argue that a company's online store blocks people with disabilities from browsing and buying on equal terms.

Because the records here do not spell out the technical details, we can only describe what suits like these commonly claim. Here is how those complaints play out for the kinds of products in this batch:

• Images a screen reader cannot describe. Blind shoppers often use a screen reader, software that speaks the page out loud. Picture someone choosing a lipstick from a row of color swatches. If those swatch images carry no written description, the software might just say "image" or read a file name like "IMG_4471," and the shopper has no idea if the shade is coral or deep red. A jewelry close-up or a pair of frames has the same problem.
• Form boxes with no names attached. Suits often claim that fields are not labeled in the code. Think of a furniture site asking for a delivery ZIP code, or a big-ticket purchase that requires a short financing form. A screen reader user may hear "edit text, edit text, edit text" with no hint of what belongs in each box.
• Keyboard traps. Some people navigate with only a keyboard. A common complaint involves a pop-up offering a discount for your email address: it appears, grabs control, and offers no way to close it without a mouse. A virtual try-on tool for glasses or a spinning 3D view of a recliner can do the same thing, letting you in but never letting you out.
• Pages with no structure. Screen reader users hop between headings the way sighted people scan a page. A sofa listing might hold fabric choices, measurements, delivery details, and reviews. With no real headings, a listener cannot skip ahead to the measurements and has to sit through everything in order.

Why do these industries feel it most? Fashion, eyewear, jewelry, beauty, and furniture are sold on looks: color, finish, and how something fits your face or your living room. Nearly all of that information lives in pictures. Larger purchases also come with longer forms. And many shoppers with disabilities lean on online shopping precisely because getting to a showroom or a store counter takes more effort for them.

Who should pay attention

Judging only by who appears in this batch, these businesses look most exposed:

• Brands with a direct online sales arm. Some defendants are named as digital or direct-sales entities, such as Swarovski Digital Business USA and Bath and Body Works Direct. When the website is the main register, it is also the main target.
• Sellers of products chosen by appearance. Fashion, eyewear, jewelry, beauty, and furniture all show up. Those sites depend heavily on photos and interactive tools, which is exactly where the claims usually focus.
• Businesses that live mostly online. Carvana is described in the records as primarily online. With no physical counter as a backup, a blocked website can mean a blocked customer.
• Anyone in a category a filer is working through. Same-day batches suggest one plaintiff may review many similar websites at once. The lists mix household names with brands far fewer people know, so a lower profile is not a shield. And the David Peyser filings show that a single company can face more than one suit at the same time.

Geography is no comfort either. These suits sit in New York, Florida, and Illinois courts, but an online store can be visited from anywhere.

What to do about it

None of these steps require you to write code yourself. Each one targets a gap that suits like these typically point to:

• Describe every product photo in words. Most store platforms have a field called "alt text" for each image. Ask whoever uploads products to fill it in with the useful details: "Matte lipstick in brick red" beats "lipstick photo."
• Connect a clear name to every form box. This includes newsletter pop-ups, delivery forms, and quote or financing forms. A quick test anyone can do: click on the words next to a box. If the cursor jumps into the box, the label is probably connected. If nothing happens, flag it for your developer.
• Make pop-ups and widgets keyboard friendly. Put the mouse aside and try your site using only Tab, Enter, and Escape. Every pop-up should close with the Escape key, and every try-on tool or image viewer should let you move on.
• Use real headings on long pages. Sections like Details, Dimensions, and Shipping should be set as headings in your site editor, not just bold or large text, so screen reader users can jump straight to them.
• Recheck after every new app or redesign. Review widgets, chat bubbles, and try-on plugins can quietly add new barriers. Put a simple accessibility check on the calendar whenever your site changes.

If you want the bigger picture explained without the jargon, read our plain-English accessibility guide. And when you are ready to see where your own site stands, run a free scan of your website. A scan will not catch every issue or stop anyone from filing a lawsuit, but it gives you a clear list of places to start.

This post summarizes allegations from public court filings. It is not legal advice, and no outcome described here has been decided by a court unless stated.