Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Website Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Courts warned to vet accessibility vendors after surge in website suits and an FTC penalty
Summary
Professor Adelson told New Mexico judiciary staff that website-accessibility litigation remains high, courts should require concrete intent-to-return allegations in standing analyses, and organizations must vet vendors after an FTC enforcement action penalizing an automated-fix company.
Professor Bruce Adelson told attendees that website-accessibility litigation continues to be a major growth area, with more than 2,200 filings annually in recent years, and that courts increasingly require plaintiffs to plausibly allege a specific intent to return to an establishment to establish Article III standing.
Adelson summarized New York federal decisions that have dismissed cases where plaintiffs could not show a concrete plan to visit a business; courts scrutinize allegations that a web barrier prevented the plaintiff from visiting the brick-and-mortar location. He urged jurisdictions to consider state human-rights laws that can create additional causes of action.
Adelson also highlighted a recent Federal Trade Commission enforcement order that penalized a company for misrepresenting that its automated product could make any website compliant; the presenter said the FTC imposed roughly a $1,000,000 penalty and barred the company for 20 years from making such claims, and advised organizations to maintain in-house expertise to vet vendors rather than relying solely on automated solutions.
