Website Accessibility for Small Businesses: Practical Steps to Reduce Risk and Serve More Customers
For many small businesses, a website functions as a storefront, a scheduling desk, and a sales channel. When a website is difficult or impossible to use for people with disabilities, it can exclude customers and create legal exposure. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued guidance explaining that both state and local governments (ADA Title II) and businesses open to the public (ADA Title III) should ensure their websites are accessible to people with disabilities consistent with the ADA’s nondiscrimination and effective communication requirements.
What “website accessibility” means in plain terms
Website accessibility generally means designing and maintaining online content so that people with disabilities can use it. In practice, that often includes ensuring compatibility with screen readers, allowing full keyboard navigation for people who cannot use a mouse, providing sufficient color contrast and scalable text for users with low vision, and making audio and video content usable through captions and transcripts. The DOJ’s web accessibility guidance describes common barriers and practical measures that organizations can take to improve accessibility.
Why small businesses should care
Small businesses are not immune from threatening demand letters and litigation in this area. Private enforcement has been common for years, and many disputes can become expensive quickly because they mix legal questions with technical questions about how the website actually works for users relying on assistive technology. For that reason, businesses often benefit from treating accessibility as a risk-management and customer-service issue rather than a one-time compliance checkbox.
The standards businesses commonly use: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
The most widely used technical benchmark is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). WCAG 2.2 is a W3C Recommendation (a web standard), and W3C has also noted that the October 2023 version of WCAG 2.2 has been approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as ISO/IEC 40500:2025, reflecting continued standardization of WCAG-based accessibility guidance.
Although the DOJ has not adopted a single, across-the-board technical standard in a Title III regulation for private businesses, the DOJ’s 2024 final rule for state and local governments under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II adopts WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard for covered public entities’ web content and mobile applications. That rule does not automatically control private business websites, but it is a significant indicator of the kind of benchmark the DOJ considers appropriate in a major ADA context.
A realistic small-business approach: audit, fix, and maintain
A practical way to manage accessibility is to treat it as a process rather than a one-time project. Many businesses start by identifying barriers through a combination of automated scanning and manual testing, then remediate at the code and content level, and then monitor for regressions when templates, plugins, third-party tools, or new content are added. EcomBack describes an approach that emphasizes code-level fixes, testing, and ongoing monitoring rather than reliance on “overlay” widgets alone.
Overlay or widget tools you may see advertised
Some vendors market “overlay,” “toolbar,” or “widget” products that add a front-end interface to a site (often through a script or plugin) and aim to improve usability and reduce legal exposure without extensive redevelopment. Examples in this product category include accessiBe’s accessWidget, UserWay’s Accessibility Widget, EqualWeb’s AI widget offerings, and AudioEye’s descriptions of “accessibility overlays” (sometimes also called widgets or plugins).
These are helpful. Businesses should be cautious about any promised “instant compliance” promise. EcomBack states that businesses using overlays, including those associated with major widget vendors, have still faced legal action and that overlays often cannot resolve core barriers such as keyboard-navigation problems, which can prevent disabled users from browsing a site without a mouse or trackpad.
Tax incentives that may help offset accessibility costs
Some small businesses may qualify for the federal Disabled Access Credit under Internal Revenue Code section 44. The statute provides a credit equal to 50% of eligible access expenditures over $250 and up to $10,250 in qualifying expenditures (producing a maximum credit of $5,000). The IRS summarizes eligibility and the general availability of this credit for eligible small businesses.
Where these lawsuits are concentrated
Industry tallies from 2024 indicate that a large share of reported website-accessibility filings are concentrated in a small number of states, most notably New York, Florida, and California. EcomBack’s 2024 annual report reports 3,948 ADA website-accessibility lawsuits and lists state counts of New York (1,108), Florida (950), and California (787), with the remainder spread across other states; based on those reported figures, those three states together represent approximately 87% of the filings tracked in that report.
A separate 2024 report sourced and presented by Accessibility.com reports 1,202 “true website accessibility cases” and identifies leading states as New York (780), California (236), and Florida (97); based on those reported figures, those three states together represent approximately 92.60% of the cases counted in that report. Both sources point to the fact that a substantial portion of reported filings cluster in the same three states
Case examples and how outcomes can differ
Courts have reached different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction, the factual setting, and the legal theory. In Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of a blind plaintiff’s ADA Title III and California Unruh Act claims alleging Domino’s website and mobile app were not accessible, holding that the claims could proceed where the alleged inaccessibility impeded access to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants.
In Haynes v. Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, the Eleventh Circuit similarly reversed dismissal at the pleading stage, holding the plaintiff plausibly alleged an ADA claim tied to a website connected to goods and services available at physical store locations, allowing the case to move forward rather than ending at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
California appellate courts have also addressed these issues. In Thurston v. Midvale Corp., the Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the plaintiff under the Unruh Act predicated on an ADA violation, concluding in that context that Title III applied where there was a sufficient nexus between the restaurant’s website and its physical place of public accommodation, and affirming injunctive relief requiring the website to be brought into compliance.
Other California appellate outcomes have turned on proof issues, including whether the plaintiff actually intended to use the service in the way alleged. In Thurston v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a defense judgment after a jury rejected the plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and found she never intended to make a hotel reservation, or ascertain prices and accommodations for that purpose, and the appellate court upheld jury instructions and verdict form issues challenged on appeal.
A different kind of California appellate decision is Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., where California’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of an Unruh claim involving an online-only business, addressing arguments about whether and how ADA Title III concepts apply when there is not a traditional physical place of public accommodation involved.
Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees and Statutory Damages
Under the ADA, the statute authorizes courts, in their discretion, to award “the prevailing party” a reasonable attorney’s fee, litigation expenses, and costs. Even though the ADA’s text is framed in “prevailing party” terms, the U.S. Supreme Court’s fee-shifting standard in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC is widely used in civil rights fee statutes to distinguish between prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants, explaining that a prevailing defendant is awarded fees only when the plaintiff’s claim is “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” That practical asymmetry means fee exposure is often perceived differently by each side, which can influence strategy and settlement considerations.
In California, claims are frequently paired with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, whose remedies statute provides for actual damages, specified minimum statutory damages in certain circumstances, and “any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court.” The combination of potential fee exposure and uncertainty about how a court will apply evolving website accessibility doctrines to a particular set of facts can be a major driver of litigation outcomes and early resolution discussions.
Hiring an attorney with experience in website accessibility disputes
If your business receives a demand letter or lawsuit alleging website inaccessibility, early decisions can affect cost, timing, and the realistic options for resolving the dispute. Because these matters often involve overlapping federal and state claims and require coordination with technical accessibility professionals, many businesses benefit from consulting counsel who regularly handles ADA Title III and related state-law accessibility claims. The DOJ’s guidance emphasizes practical accessibility—whether people with disabilities can actually use the online service—which often means legal strategy and technical remediation have to be evaluated together.
This article is general information, not legal advice.