Skip to main content
4 min read

ADA Lawsuit Watch: New Website Accessibility Suits Spread Beyond New York Into California, Minnesota, and Illinois

By Ryvo Team

AccessibilityADA LawsuitsRetailE-commerceApparel

What's new

Last time, nearly every filing we tracked landed in New York or Florida courts (you can revisit that roundup in our previous update). This batch looks different. New York is still busy, but the map has widened: eight newly surfaced suits now reach into California, Minnesota, and Illinois too.

Apparel and accessory brands are front and center. Menswear seller Parker v. Tailored Brands, Inc. and swim brand Thomas v. Fair Harbor Clothing PBC were both filed in New York. Out west, Latanya Williams v. Ju Ju B Accessory, Inc. targets a small California accessory shop. Fitness gear seller Dalton v. Gymreapers LLC was filed in Minnesota, Ramirez v. In Things Corp. in Illinois, and soap and body brand Thomas v. Naples Soap Company, Inc. rounds out the retail pattern.

What the lawsuits claim

Every one of these cases is an allegation, not a ruling. They are filed under the ADA (the Americans with Disabilities Act), and they all make the same basic argument: the company's website has barriers that keep a shopper with a disability from buying the way everyone else can.

The court records in this batch do not spell out every technical detail, but suits against online stores almost always point to the same handful of problems:

  • Product images with no descriptions. A blind shopper uses a screen reader, software that reads the page out loud. When a photo of a shirt has no text description in the code, the software has nothing to say. For that shopper, the product does not exist.
  • Checkout forms without labels. If the name, address, and card fields are not properly labeled in code, assistive software cannot tell which box is which. The shopper gives up, and the sale dies at checkout.
  • Buttons and menus that require a mouse. Some people browse entirely by keyboard. If a size picker or an add to cart button cannot be reached and pressed with the Tab and Enter keys, they are simply stuck.
  • Missing page structure. Headings act like signposts for screen reader users. When a page has none, finding anything becomes guesswork.

For apparel and accessory brands, this stings twice. Shopping for clothes is intensely visual: colors, cuts, and fit all live in photos. That makes image descriptions and clean product page structure matter more here than in almost any other industry, and it may be part of why this batch leans so heavily toward clothing and accessories.

Why online stores keep getting hit

A few plaintiff names appear on multiple filings in this batch alone, which suggests these suits are coming in coordinated waves rather than one at a time. An online store is also quick to evaluate: open the home page, pull up a product, try to check out. If the site fails with a screen reader or a keyboard, the complaint nearly writes itself.

The spread beyond New York and Florida matters for the same reason. If you sell online, your store can be reached from any state, so "we are not a New York company" offers less protection than it might feel like. And size is no shield in either direction: this batch names both a national menswear chain and a small independent accessory shop.

What to do about it

You do not need to become an accessibility expert overnight. A few practical steps close the most commonly claimed gaps:

  • Describe every product image. Alt text should say what the item is, like "navy blue one piece swimsuit," not a file name like "IMG_4021".
  • Label every form field. Name, email, address, and payment inputs need real labels in the code, not just gray placeholder text that disappears when you click.
  • Do a five minute keyboard test. Put the mouse away and use Tab, Enter, and the arrow keys to browse a product and reach checkout. Anywhere you get stuck, a shopper with a disability gets stuck too.
  • Check your site before someone else does. Start with our plain-English accessibility guide for the full picture, then run a free scan of your website to see the specific issues on your own pages, ranked by lawsuit risk.

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.