ADA Title II Website Deadline Moved to April 2027: US Accessibility Law, Section 508 and Lawsuits (2026)

Last reviewed 10 November 2026 (AEST). This is general information, not legal advice.

If you run a state or local government website, the date you planned to has moved by a year. The standard has not. The Department of Justice (DOJ) says "covered entities have an ongoing obligation" to make web and app services accessible, whatever the dates. The duty doesn't wait for the deadline.

This article sets out where US digital accessibility law stands, what the monitoring data shows, and who is affected. For Europe and the UK, see our EU and UK digital accessibility laws briefing.

Is website accessibility legally required in the United States?

Yes, for most organisations, but the source of the duty depends on who you are. ADA Title II, Section 504 and Section 508 set WCAG standards for state and local government, federally funded bodies and federal agencies. ADA Title III covers businesses open to the public, with no technical rule, as at 10 November 2026.

The key points:

• No single US law sets a technical web standard for everyone. Obligations depend on who you are. ADA Title II covers state and local government, and Title III covers businesses open to the public. Section 508 covers federal agencies, Section 504 covers recipients of federal funding, and airlines have the Air Carrier Access Act. States add their own laws.
• State and local governments have until 26 April 2027 or 26 April 2028 to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA. DOJ extended its 2024 rule by a year on 20 April 2026.
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funding recipients have until 11 May 2027 or 10 May 2028, after a similar extension.
• Both extensions are under legal challenge. The National Federation of the Blind sued both departments on 21 May 2026. We found no ruling as at 10 November 2026.
• Section 508 still refers to WCAG 2.0 Level AA for federal agencies' own technology.
• Private businesses face no technical rule, but they do face lawsuits. Seyfarth Shaw counted 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025 (federal courts only).
• Automated failures are rising. WebAIM's 2026 scan found detectable WCAG failures on 95.9% of the top one million home pages, up from 94.8% in 2025.
• Overlays do not settle the question. The Federal Trade Commission ordered accessiBe to pay US$1 million in 2025 over claims about its automated tool.
• States are moving in both directions, from Hawaii's new public accommodation duty to Utah's curbs on website suits it treats as abusive.

When is the ADA Title II website deadline?

April 26, 2027 for state and local governments serving 50,000 people or more, and 26 April 2028 for smaller entities and special districts, after DOJ's interim final rule of 20 April 2026 (91 FR 20902). The standard is still WCAG 2.1 AA. The National Federation of the Blind is challenging the delay; there is no ruling as at 10 November 2026.

The 2024 rule

On 24 April 2024 DOJ published its first technical rule for state and local government websites and mobile apps. It adopted WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with limited exceptions such as archived content. It covers public schools, public universities, courts, transit agencies and public hospitals, among others.

Compliance was first due on 24 April 2026 for entities with a population of 50,000 or more. Smaller entities and special district governments had until 26 April 2027. The ADA.gov fact sheet now shows the current dates.

The 2026 extension

On 20 April 2026, four days before the first deadline, DOJ published an interim final rule that took effect immediately. It moved both dates by about a year. Public comments closed on 22 June 2026.

DOJ said it had "overestimated the capabilities (whether staffing or technology) of covered entities to comply" in time. It cited letters from higher education associations, school district associations and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. It also recorded letters against delay, including from the Association on Higher Education and Disability and the National Federation of the Blind.

Three points matter if you are planning around the rule:

• The standard did not change. The rule still points to WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
• The obligation did not pause. DOJ wrote that "covered entities have an ongoing obligation" under Title II.
• The substance may be revisited. DOJ said it "plans to engage in future rulemaking processes related to the substantive requirements". We found no such proposal in the Federal Register as at 10 November 2026.

Title II also lets individuals sue, known as a "private right of action". DOJ noted that, once the original dates passed, public entities "would be subject to significant litigation risk". Federal deadlines are not the only reason to act.

Which US accessibility law applies to us?

No single law covers everyone. ADA Title II covers state and local government, and Title III covers businesses open to the public. Section 508 covers federal agencies, and Section 504 covers recipients of federal funding. Airlines and communications services have their own rules. Most name WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.0 AA, as at 10 November 2026.

What this means for your team

The deadline moved; the purpose didn't. The ADA exists so people with disabilities can use public services like anyone else, and DOJ says the obligation is ongoing. Title II also lets individuals sue (a "private right of action"). WCAG 2.1 AA is the standard the rule names, and it's the right place to start. The question the law is really asking is whether people can pay, apply, enrol or book. Start with the services people can't get elsewhere: payments, permits, benefits, enrolment, patient portals. Test them with blind, low-vision, Deaf, neurodivergent, older and limited-English users. Keep a dated record of what you fixed before April 2027.

Conformance and a legal obligation matter. WCAG and the laws behind it exist because people with disabilities met enormous barriers and had to fight for these protections. That work is respected and acknowledged.

See Me Please also firmly believes that no organisation sets out to shut out people with disabilities. Most teams have no idea how much friction people face. Online, that friction is largely invisible. Analytics can show that users abandon a form, but not who left or why. Without seeing who is affected, designers and engineers struggle to fix the cause. Teams are often unaware of the problem, or working within real constraints.

Accessibility is also complex, and too many people play down how hard some barriers are to fix. Some are a quick change. Others mean rethinking a whole journey, a platform or what you buy from suppliers. There is little on offer, anywhere in the world, to build accessibility capability inside teams. Most organisations still depend on handing the work to specialist consultants, often at high cost.

See Me Please is a technology company headquartered in Sydney, Australia. Its platform tests services with real people from a panel in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Ireland. Read how it works in the product overview.

Check your most-used public services work for everyone, before April 2027

When must HHS-funded health providers meet the Section 504 rule?

11 May 2027 for recipients of HHS funding with 15 or more employees, and 10 May 2028 for smaller recipients. The standard is WCAG 2.1 Level AA, under the HHS Section 504 rule of 9 May 2024. A one-year extension (91 FR 25496) is also part of the NFB lawsuit, as at 10 November 2026.

HHS published its revised Section 504 rule on 9 May 2024. For hospitals, clinics, health plans and social service providers that receive HHS funding, it adopted WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content and mobile apps.

HHS then followed DOJ with its own interim final rule. It was published in the Federal Register on 11 May 2026 and took effect from 7 May 2026.

A separate HHS Section 504 rule published on 3 November 2026 deals with the definition of disability. It does not change the web accessibility dates.

Could the Title II and Section 504 deadlines change again?

Yes. On 21 May 2026 the National Federation of the Blind sued DOJ and HHS. It asks the court to vacate both extensions and restore the original dates. DOJ has also said it may propose changes to the rule's substance. We found no ruling and no proposed rule as at 10 November 2026.

The case is National Federation of the Blind v. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-02007, in the US District Court for the District of Maryland (complaint). The NFB argues both interim final rules breach the Administrative Procedure Act. It says they were issued without advance notice and comment, and without adequate consideration of the harm to people with disabilities.

As at 10 November 2026 we found no ruling in NFB v. DOJ. The outcome could move the dates again, in either direction, so don't treat 2027 and 2028 as fixed. We will update this article when the court rules, if DOJ proposes changes to the Title II rule, and when the 2027 dates arrive.

Do private businesses have to make their websites accessible under ADA Title III?

Yes. DOJ's guidance of 18 March 2022 says businesses open to the public must make their online goods and services accessible, but may choose how. Title III has no technical rule. Courts are split on details such as online-only businesses, so exposure depends on where a business is sued, as at 10 November 2026.

DOJ's Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA was still live on ADA.gov in November 2026. When DOJ withdrew 11 ADA guidance documents on 19 March 2025, the web guidance was not among them.

Courts have filled the gap, but not in the same way:

• Robles v. Domino's Pizza (9th Cir., 15 January 2019). The Ninth Circuit held that the ADA applied to Domino's website and app because of their "nexus" to its restaurants. It rejected the argument that this breached due process without a technical standard. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal on 7 October 2019.
• Gil v. Winn-Dixie (11th Cir.). In April 2021 a panel held that a grocery chain's website was not a place of public accommodation. On 28 December 2021 the court vacated that opinion as moot, so it is no longer precedent.
• Acheson Hotels v. Laufer (US Supreme Court, 5 December 2023). The Court was asked whether a "tester" who never meant to visit a hotel could sue over its website. It dismissed the case as moot without deciding, leaving the split on standing in place.

Some federal circuits require a connection to a physical location; others have been more open to claims about online-only businesses. Standing rules also vary, which moves filings between courts and states.

Do US states add their own accessibility rules?

Yes. California makes any ADA violation a breach of state law, with minimum statutory damages. Colorado set rules for state and local government. Hawaii added a duty for places of public accommodation in July 2026. Utah created a way to challenge abusive website suits, as at 10 November 2026.

• California. The Unruh Civil Rights Act makes any ADA violation a violation of state law (Civil Code section 51(f)). It provides statutory damages of not less than US$4,000 per offence (section 52(a)).
• New York. State and city human rights laws are used alongside the ADA, and many website claims are brought in state court.
• Colorado. HB21-1110 required state and local government entities to meet rules set by the Office of Information Technology by 1 July 2024. HB24-1454, signed on 24 May 2024, gave entities making good-faith efforts a grace period to 1 July 2025. That grace period has ended.
• Hawaii. Act 257 (SB2852), approved on 14 July 2026, bars places of public accommodation from requiring people with disabilities to use inaccessible technology. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission must make rules consistent with DOJ's 2024 Title II framework. Those rules are still being developed.
• Utah. SB 68 (2026), "Disability Litigation Amendments", lets a court decide whether a website access lawsuit under the ADA is abusive. Fees, punitive damages and sanctions are possible.

What are the key dates in US digital accessibility law?

26 April 2027 is the next compliance date: state and local governments of 50,000 people or more must meet WCAG 2.1 AA under ADA Title II. HHS-funded recipients with 15 or more employees follow on 11 May 2027. Both dates are subject to the NFB lawsuit, as at 10 November 2026.

Does any US rule require testing with people with disabilities?

Yes, one that we found. The Department of Transportation's Air Carrier Access Act rule (14 CFR 382.43) asks airlines to test their primary websites in consultation with people with disabilities. No other US web accessibility rule in this article asks for that, as at 10 November 2026.

The air carrier rule: 14 CFR 382.43

The air carrier rule requires airlines' primary websites to meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA. Its deadlines passed in 2015 and 2016. It asks airlines to test their websites "in consultation with individuals with disabilities or members of disability organization(s)". That consultation covers visual, auditory, tactile and cognitive disabilities.

Any buyer can use the same model. Ask not only what a product claims to meet, but who it was tested with.

Are US websites becoming more accessible?

No. WebAIM's February 2026 scan found detectable WCAG 2 failures on 95.9% of the top one million home pages, up from 94.8% in 2025. The federal government's own Section 508 assessment scored 1.96 out of 5. Both are as at 10 November 2026.

The WebAIM Million

Each year WebAIM, a non-profit at Utah State University, runs automated checks on the top one million home pages. In 2026 the average home page had 56.1 detectable errors, up from 51 in 2025, and 1,437 page elements.

The most common failures were:

Government and education sites did better on average. The 1,987 .gov home pages averaged 18.5 errors, and the 3,174 .edu home pages averaged 23.0. Automated tools detect only part of WCAG, so a page with no detected errors is not necessarily conformant. None of these numbers show whether a person can complete a task.

The federal government's own assessment

The General Services Administration (GSA) reports to Congress each year on how agencies meet Section 508. Its FY2025 assessment, published in March 2026, drew on 212 agencies, parent agencies and components. It found:

• The governmentwide average conformance score was 1.96 on a 5-point scale.
• Fewer than half of agencies' most viewed or used technology assets were fully conformant.
• Only 27% of agencies and 25% of components required Section 508 training.
• Less than 30% of agencies almost always verified that technology from contractors conformed to Section 508.
• Testing and remediation was the weakest area, and usability testing with people with disabilities was rare.

GSA says changes to its criteria make FY2025 a new baseline, so don't compare these figures directly with earlier years.

Why the same barriers keep appearing

• Pages are growing more complex faster than they are fixed. WebAIM links rising error counts to more page elements and heavier use of ARIA. Pages with ARIA averaged 59.1 errors, against 42 without. WebAIM also points, in its view, to automated or AI-assisted coding.
• Accessibility is not built into buying. GSA found most agencies do not routinely check what they buy.
• Skills are thin. Mandatory training is uncommon even inside the federal government.
• Testing stops at the tool. Scans are fast and useful for finding conformance failures. They cannot judge whether a screen reader user can check out, or whether a form makes sense to someone reading in a second language. Read more on accessibility and usability.
• Deadlines keep moving. Uncertainty about the Title II and Section 504 dates, and about any rewrite, gives organisations a reason to wait.

Do banks, insurers, universities and health providers face the same rules?

No. Public universities fall under Title II, and HHS-funded health providers and health plans under the Section 504 rule. Banks and most other insurers fall under Title III, through litigation rather than supervision. We found no sector-specific federal web standard outside the HHS rule, as at 10 November 2026.

State and local government

State and local governments are the main target of the Title II rule. In its April 2026 rule, DOJ described small governments with limited technical staff and school districts that would need to hire. Meanwhile the services people rely on most remain uneven: benefits, courts, voting information, permits, public transport and school portals. A government website often has no alternative provider.

Federal agencies are covered by Section 508 instead, and GSA's assessment shows they have not solved the problem either.

Banking and financial services

We found no federal banking regulator with a binding web accessibility standard for banks or credit unions. Banks open to the public are generally treated as public accommodations under Title III.

Credit unions have been a recurring target. They have also produced leading standing cases, where courts dismissed suits by people not eligible to become members. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule in Acheson leaves this unsettled. Common barriers include login and multi-factor authentication, time-outs, PDF statements and complex loan and dispute forms.

Insurance

Health insurers and health plans that receive HHS funding are covered by the Section 504 rule and its 2027 and 2028 dates. Other insurers are covered by Title III where they serve the public. Claims forms, PDF policy documents and quote tools are common barriers.

Universities and colleges

Public universities are covered by Title II and the 2024 rule. Private universities are covered by Title III, and most receive federal funding, which brings in Section 504. The 2024 rule started a large compliance push: course materials, video captioning and learning platform procurement.

The sector was central to the 2026 extension. DOJ cited a May 2025 letter from the American Council on Education asking for delay. It also cited a July 2025 letter from the Association on Higher Education and Disability arguing against it. A member of Congress raised concern that current tools, including generative AI, cannot reliably remediate science and mathematics content at scale without human oversight.

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights handles many disability complaints from students. It closed seven of its 12 regional offices in March 2025, according to Associated Press reporting carried by EdSource. Staff on leave were recalled from 15 December 2025. The same reporting puts the complaint backlog at more than 25,000.

Health

Health has the clearest new standard outside government: the HHS Section 504 rule adopts WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Patient portals, appointment booking, telehealth and test results are the services most likely to block people. With the larger-recipient date now 11 May 2027, providers have more time, but not a different obligation.

Do inaccessible digital services affect many people in the US?

Yes. On the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) measure, 28.7% of US adults reported a functional disability in 2022. The Census Bureau's narrower definition counted 45.8 million people, or 13.7%, in 2024. The two figures measure different things, as at 10 November 2026.

The CDC figure uses the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The Census figure covers the civilian non-institutionalised population. Don't compare them directly.

People with disabilities are also less likely to own the devices services assume. In a Pew Research Center survey from early 2021, 62% of adults with a disability owned a desktop or laptop, against 81% without. For smartphones it was 72% against 88%.

The sections below follow six perspectives. See how we describe each of our testing cohorts.

Blind people and screen reader users

CDC data shows 5.5% of US adults report serious difficulty seeing, even with glasses. For screen reader users, the most common WebAIM failures do the most damage. Missing image descriptions (53.1%), empty links (46.3%) and empty buttons (30.6%) mean controls are announced without saying what they do. Unlabelled form fields (51%) turn sign-up, checkout and applications into guesswork.

Blind people and their organisations have driven much of US accessibility law. The NFB brought early landmark web cases and is now the plaintiff challenging the 2026 extensions. The American Foundation for the Blind and the American Council of the Blind also advocate on digital access.

Low vision

Low contrast text appeared on 83.9% of home pages in 2026, the most common WebAIM failure for years running. For people with low vision, the everyday barriers are poor contrast, text that breaks when enlarged and layouts that don't reflow on zoom. Many people with low vision don't use screen readers, so testing focused only on screen readers can miss them.

Deaf and hard of hearing people

CDC data shows 6.2% of US adults report serious difficulty hearing. The barriers are video and audio without accurate captions or transcripts, phone-only contact routes and verification by voice call. For Deaf people whose first language is American Sign Language, written English may be a second language. Plain language matters as much as captions. The National Association of the Deaf has long pursued captioning of online content.

Neurodivergent people

Cognitive disability is the most common type in the CDC data, reported by 13.9% of US adults. It means serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions. CDC estimates about 1 in 31 eight-year-old children were identified with autism in 2022 (CDC autism data). Neurodivergent people are often most affected by problems automated tools cannot detect. These include confusing navigation, dense instructions, unexpected time-outs and forms that clear after an error. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is a leading voice for autistic people in US policy.

Older people

Pew Research Center's 2025 survey found 78% of adults aged 65 and older own a smartphone, and 70% have home broadband. Those are the lowest shares of any age group. Age brings more vision, hearing, dexterity and memory difficulties, often several at once. Many older people don't identify as having a disability. AARP is the main membership organisation representing older Americans.

People with limited English proficiency

KFF's analysis of 2023 American Community Survey data estimates 27.3 million people aged five and over have limited English proficiency. That is roughly 9% of that population.

Federal policy on language access changed in 2025. Executive Order 14224 designated English as the official language and revoked Executive Order 13166, which had guided agencies on language access since 2000. On 14 July 2025 DOJ issued guidance directing agencies to minimise "non-essential multilingual services". Title VI of the Civil Rights Act still prohibits national origin discrimination by funding recipients.

For people with limited English, the barriers overlap with those neurodivergent people face: complex wording, unexplained jargon and no plain-language summary. Machine translation helps only when the source text is clear.

Are most ADA website claims brought by private lawsuits?

Yes. Litigation is the main enforcement route for private businesses. Seyfarth Shaw counted 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, up 27% on 2024 (federal courts only). Many claims go to state courts, which those counts exclude, as at 10 November 2026.

Lawsuits

Seyfarth Shaw, a law firm, counts federal court filings. We treat its figures as commentary, and every count below is federal courts only:

• 8,667 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in or removed to federal court in 2025, 2% fewer than the 8,800 in 2024. The peak was 11,452 in 2021 (federal courts only).
• Of those, 3,117 concerned website accessibility, up 27% from 2,452 in 2024. New York (1,021), Florida (961) and Illinois (585) led. Seyfarth reports only four in California's federal courts (federal courts only).
• In the first half of 2026, 5,006 Title III lawsuits were filed in federal court, up 9% on the first half of 2025 (4,575). Seyfarth says 2026 "could end with over 10,000 federal filings" (federal courts only).

These counts leave out state courts, where many website claims now go. California federal courts have generally declined to hear Unruh Act damages claims alongside ADA claims. Seyfarth reports that tougher standing rules in New York federal courts have pushed plaintiffs to state court. The vendor UsableNet, which counts federal and some state cases, reported about 5,100 digital accessibility lawsuits in 2025. Its methods differ from Seyfarth's, so we treat it as vendor commentary.

For public bodies, the risk does not depend on the 2027 date. DOJ itself said Title II's private right of action creates significant litigation risk.

Overlays and automated "fix" tools

On 22 April 2025 the FTC approved a final order requiring accessiBe to pay US$1 million. The order bars the company from claiming, without evidence, that its automated products can make any website WCAG-compliant or keep it compliant. It also bars presenting paid reviews as independent. The case was about advertising claims, not ADA compliance, but it shows a widget is not a compliance strategy.

UsableNet's 2025 report, also vendor commentary, says "an increasing number of lawsuits were filed against companies already using these tools".

Commercial

More than one in four US adults report a disability on the CDC measure. A checkout, booking or application that does not work with assistive technology shuts those customers out. Settling one claim without fixing the underlying barriers does not prevent the next.

Procurement

Federal agencies, many states and universities ask vendors for an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR). It is usually based on the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) from the Information Technology Industry Council. An ACR is the vendor's own statement. GSA found fewer than 30% of federal agencies almost always verify what they receive.

Insurance cover for claims

Some organisations assume their liability or cyber insurance will respond to an accessibility claim. Policy wording varies widely, and some policies exclude ADA or discrimination claims. We found no reliable public data on how often these claims are covered, so check your own policy.

Frequently asked questions

Is website accessibility a legal requirement in the United States?

Yes, for most organisations. State and local governments must meet WCAG 2.1 AA under ADA Title II, and federal agencies must meet Section 508. HHS-funded organisations must meet WCAG 2.1 AA under Section 504, and courts apply ADA Title III to business websites, though it has no technical rule.

When is the ADA Title II deadline for state and local government websites?

26 April 2027 for entities with a population of 50,000 or more, and 26 April 2028 for smaller entities and special districts. DOJ set these dates on 20 April 2026. The National Federation of the Blind is challenging the extension, and there was no ruling as at 10 November 2026.

Section 508 vs ADA Title II: which applies to us?

No, they do not usually overlap. Section 508 covers federal agencies' own technology and points to WCAG 2.0 AA. ADA Title II covers state and local governments and points to WCAG 2.1 AA; a private business falls under ADA Title III instead.

What accessibility standard applies in the US?

No single standard applies to everyone. WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the standard in the 2024 DOJ Title II and HHS Section 504 rules. Section 508 and the airline website rule still use WCAG 2.0 Level AA. Title III has no formal standard (as at 10 November 2026).

Who enforces digital accessibility in the US?

No single regulator does. DOJ enforces the ADA, and the Department of Transportation enforces the airline rule. HHS and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights enforce Section 504 for their funding recipients. Most enforcement in practice comes from private lawsuits under the ADA and state laws such as California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

How many ADA website lawsuits are filed each year?

In 2025 Seyfarth Shaw counted 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits, up 27% on 2024, within 8,667 federal ADA Title III lawsuits (federal courts only). These counts exclude state courts, where many website claims are now filed.

Does WCAG conformance make a website accessible?

No, not on its own. WCAG is the foundation: it makes accessibility measurable and shared, and it should be met. Automated tools detect only part of it, and testing with people with disabilities shows whether real tasks can be completed.

Will an overlay make my site ADA compliant?

No, there is no basis for assuming so. In April 2025 the FTC ordered accessiBe to pay US$1 million. It barred claims, without evidence, that its automated product could make any website WCAG-compliant. UsableNet, a vendor, reports that lawsuits continued to be filed against companies already using such tools in 2025.

Can user-testing evidence support an accessibility defense?

No US rule says so directly, and nothing here promises a legal outcome. DOJ's 2022 guidance lets businesses choose how they make online services accessible. The airline rule (14 CFR 382.43) already asks for testing in consultation with people with disabilities. A dated record of what you tested and fixed shows what you did; to compare ways of testing with people, see See Me Please vs Fable.

Do private businesses have to make their websites accessible if there is no Title III rule?

Yes. DOJ's guidance of 18 March 2022, still published in November 2026, says businesses open to the public must make online services accessible. They can choose how. Courts are split on details such as whether an online-only business is covered.

Do health providers have a separate web accessibility deadline?

Yes. HHS funding recipients with 15 or more employees must meet WCAG 2.1 AA by 11 May 2027, and smaller recipients by 10 May 2028. HHS published the one-year extension on 11 May 2026. That extension is also part of the NFB lawsuit.

What should we ask vendors before buying software?

No vendor claim is enough on its own. Ask for an Accessibility Conformance Report (usually based on a VPAT), then verify it, ideally by testing key tasks with people with disabilities. GSA found fewer than 30% of federal agencies almost always verify what they buy.

References and sources

We started with primary sources: the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations, court opinions and dockets, federal agency reports and state legislatures. Figures from law firms and vendors are labelled as commentary, because they count cases in different ways. Where we could not confirm a figure at its source, we left it out.

Primary regulatory and monitoring sources

• US Department of Justice, Extension of Compliance Dates; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, interim final rule, 91 FR 20902, 20 April 2026: federalregister.gov
• ADA.gov, Fact Sheet: New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps Provided by State and Local Governments: ada.gov
• US Department of Health and Human Services, Extension of Compliance Dates; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance, interim final rule, 91 FR 25496, published 11 May 2026, effective 7 May 2026: federalregister.gov
• HHS, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, final rule, 91 FR 69207, 3 November 2026: federalregister.gov
• ADA.gov, Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA, 18 March 2022: ada.gov
• US Department of Justice, press release on withdrawal of 11 ADA guidance documents, 19 March 2025: justice.gov
• US Department of Justice, press release on guidance implementing Executive Order 14224, 14 July 2025: justice.gov
• Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, No. 17-55504 (9th Cir. 15 January 2019): ca9.uscourts.gov; Supreme Court docket No. 18-1539 (cert. denied 7 October 2019): supremecourt.gov
• Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 17-13467 (11th Cir. 28 December 2021): law.justia.com
• Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, No. 22-429 (US Supreme Court, 5 December 2023): supremecourt.gov
• National Federation of the Blind v. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-02007 (D. Md.), complaint; no ruling as at 10 November 2026: democracyforward.org
• 14 CFR 382.43, Air Carrier Access Act website requirements (eCFR, current): ecfr.gov
• US Access Board, Information and Communication Technology (Section 508 Standards): access-board.gov
• GSA, FY 2025 Governmentwide Section 508 Assessment, executive summary (March 2026): section508.gov
• Federal Trade Commission, FTC Approves Final Order Requiring accessiBe to Pay $1 Million, 22 April 2025: ftc.gov
• California Civil Code sections 51 and 52: section 51, section 52
• Colorado General Assembly, HB24-1454 Grace Period Noncompliance Digital Accessibility: leg.colorado.gov; HB21-1110: leg.colorado.gov
• Hawaii State Legislature, SB2852 (Act 257, 2026): capitol.hawaii.gov; enrolled text: SB2852 CD1
• Utah Legislature, S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments (2026), enrolled copy: le.utah.gov
• CDC, Disability and Health Data Now: cdc.gov
• CDC, Disability Impacts All of Us infographic: cdc.gov
• CDC, Data and Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder: cdc.gov
• US Census Bureau, Facts for Features: Anniversary of Americans with Disabilities Act, July 26, 2026: census.gov

Independent academic and NGO research

• WebAIM, The WebAIM Million: the 2026 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages: webaim.org
• WebAIM, An Extension is Not an Excuse, 28 May 2026: webaim.org
• Pew Research Center, Internet use, smartphone ownership, digital divides in the U.S., 8 January 2026: pewresearch.org
• Pew Research Center, Americans with disabilities less likely than those without to own some digital devices, 10 September 2021: pewresearch.org
• KFF, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States Could Impact Millions with Limited English Proficiency: kff.org
• National Federation of the Blind, press release on lawsuit, 21 May 2026: nfb.org
• EdSource (Associated Press reporting), Education Department staffers returning to handle discrimination complaints, 8 December 2025: edsource.org

Industry and vendor commentary (context only)

• Seyfarth Shaw LLP, ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Filings Fall Slightly to 8,667 in 2025, February 2026: adatitleiii.com
• Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Federal Court Website Accessibility Lawsuit Filings Bounce Back in 2025, March 2026: adatitleiii.com
• Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2026 Mid-Year Report: ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Numbers Are Climbing, 9 September 2026: adatitleiii.com
• UsableNet, 2025 Year-End Digital Accessibility Lawsuit Report (vendor): info.usablenet.com

About See Me Please

See Me Please is a technology company headquartered in Sydney, Australia. Its platform runs accessibility and usability testing with real people: each project puts a digital service in front of 18 paid participants from six perspectives (Blind, Low vision, Deaf, Neurodivergent, Over-65, Limited English), drawn from a panel of more than 300 testers in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Ireland, with findings in five business days. More than 40 organisations are customers. On its platform, See Me Please has logged more than 3,200 session recordings and 7,800 tracked findings, across 26 projects for 18 organisations in Australia, the UK and Ireland (as at 10 November 2026). See Me Please for US organisations

Check your most-used public services work for everyone, before April 2027

Want to be a tester? Join our panel