See which findings have shown up in real cases

U.S. | 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019); cert. denied

Issues cited: JAWS screen reader could not complete an online or mobile pizza order; missing button names, link names, form labels.

Outcome: Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal and held the ADA applies to a website and mobile app with a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation. Settled on remand.

Why it matters: The single most-cited authority for retailers and quick-service food brands with physical locations across the western United States.

U.S. | 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006); class settlement 2008

Issues cited: Missing alt text on product images, mouse-only interactions, inaccessible checkout form fields.

Outcome: $6 million class damages plus $3.7 million attorney fees. Established the foundational nexus theory under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the ADA.

Why it matters: First major web accessibility class settlement. Every subsequent California retail case traces back to this ruling.

U.S. | 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021), vacated as moot

Issues cited: Screen reader could not refill prescriptions, link a digital coupon to a rewards card, or locate stores.

Outcome: Eleventh Circuit rejected the nexus standard and held that websites are not places of public accommodation. Vacated as moot in December 2021 but the panel opinion remains the most-cited Eleventh Circuit guidance.

Why it matters: The defense-favoring outlier. Plaintiffs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama face a much harder pleading burden than plaintiffs in California, New York, or Massachusetts.

U.S. | 869 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Mass. 2012)

Issues cited: Only a small portion of Netflix Watch Instantly content carried closed captions.

Outcome: Consent decree October 2012: Netflix to caption 100 percent of its US streaming library by September 30, 2014.

Why it matters: Holds that a pure-internet business can be a place of public accommodation under Title III, and that captioning is required for streaming content.

U.S. | D. Mass. consent decree 2/26/2020 (Harvard); settlement 7/21/2020 (MIT)

Issues cited: Missing or inaccurate captions on edX, MOOCs, course videos, podcasts, lecture archives. YouTube auto-captions used in place of human captions.

Outcome: Harvard approximately $1.5 million attorney fees plus injunctive remediation. MIT approximately $1.6 million attorney fees plus injunctive remediation.

Why it matters: Establishes that universities subject to Title III and Section 504 must caption publicly available online video and audio. Auto-captions are insufficient.

U.S. | Consent Decree, D. Mass., March 2014

Issues cited: Tax preparation website, product, and mobile apps inaccessible to blind, deaf, and motor-impaired users.

Outcome: Five-year consent decree requiring WCAG 2.0 AA across web, mobile, and the tax filing utility by January 1, 2015. $45,000 to two individual plaintiffs plus a $55,000 civil penalty and an outside annual evaluator.

Why it matters: A DOJ consent decree covering both web and mobile, with independent annual evaluation built into the remedy.

U.S. | Consent Decree, N.D. Cal., December 2022

Issues cited: More than 20,000 YouTube videos lacked captions or had auto-generated captions only. Podcasts lacked transcripts.

Outcome: Three-and-a-half year remediation, revised accessibility policy, independent auditor. Title II requires public universities to caption publicly available online content.

Why it matters: The benchmark for Title II YouTube and podcast captioning obligations across public higher education.

U.S. | Settlement Agreement, archive.ada.gov, November 1, 2021

Issues cited: COVID-19 vaccine portal calendar not announced to screen readers, broken tab order on the consent form, insufficient color contrast on text and links.

Outcome: Rite Aid required to conform the portal to WCAG 2.1 AA within 30 days. Quarterly testing for 30 months.

Why it matters: A DOJ settlement that specified WCAG 2.1 AA and called out color contrast by name.

U.S. | Class action settlement approved 2025, C.D. Cal.

Issues cited: Standard image-alt, link-name, button-name, label, and color-contrast suite. Site inaccessibility for screen reader users.

Outcome: $5.15 million total fund (approximately $2.43 million to California subclass members, $2.52 million to plaintiffs' counsel). DOJ filed a Statement of Interest opposing the settlement as not fair, reasonable, and adequate under FRCP 23.

Why it matters: A large reported web accessibility class settlement. The DOJ objection shows that the adequacy of remediation and the share of attorney fees in class settlements can draw federal scrutiny.

Canada | 2010 FC 1197; aff'd 2012 FCA 161

Issues cited: Blind plaintiff could not create a profile to apply for federal jobs and could not complete the 2006 online Census without sighted assistance.

Outcome: Federal Court ruled the Government of Canada's failure to maintain its sites to its own accessibility standards violated section 15(1) Charter equality rights. 15 months to remediate. Federal Court of Appeal affirmed.

Why it matters: Foundational Canadian federal decision on government website accessibility, often compared to NFB v. Target in the U.S.

U.S. | 601 U.S. ___ (2023), 144 S. Ct. 18

Issues cited: Hotel reservation websites did not disclose ADA accessibility information about guest rooms (28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)).

Outcome: Supreme Court dismissed 9-0 as moot. The standing question for ADA testers was left unresolved and the circuit split survives.

Why it matters: Even after dismissal, hotel reservation rule plaintiffs continue to file. The deeper consequence: tester standing remains an open question and lower courts are still filtering by jurisdiction.

U.S. | Settlement Agreement, lflegal.com, November 2024

Issues cited: Four blind clients identified barriers across Schwab digital properties (web and mobile).

Outcome: Schwab digital properties remediation against WCAG 2.2 AA, including the new focus-not-obscured criterion.

Why it matters: Sets WCAG 2.2 AA as the target for a major financial services company, a step above the 2.1 AA seen in DOJ orders.