Wow, February was a busy month! I'll start with some of the new cases-- starting with a Title II case and then two cases that chip away at the nexus standard. Then, I'll talk about two more states that are proposing digital accessibility laws and we'll wrap up with a dubious bill to limit abusive web accessibility litigation.
The First Title II Web Accessibility Case After DOJ’s Rule is from Louisiana?
In Ellerbee v. Louisiana Div. of Admin., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14687 (M.D. La. 2025), Beau Ellerbee sued Louisiana’s Office of Technology Services (OTS) claiming that he had visited a number of Louisiana state government websites and found that he was unable to access their services because they were inaccessible to him using his screen reader. He sued the state, which responded that it already had an obligation to make its websites accessible by April 2026 under the new DOJ web accessibility rule and that asking it to make them accessible earlier was premature and so the case should be dismissed.
Predictably, the court denied the defendant’s motion. The court noted that other courts had held that the (previous) absence of clear regulations for websites did not relieve state and local governments of their duty to ensure effective communication for people with disabilities under either Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Don’t Count the SDNY Out After Mejia
A few months ago, we blogged about Chief Judge Laura Swain’s opinion in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, which appeared the shut the door on ADA lawsuits against purely online companies. Well, it appears that her opinion was not the final word from the court because on February 18, Judge Annalisa Torres denied a motion to dismiss against Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc., a purely online company, in a lawsuit by Zebone Brown, who could not buy the defendant’s luxury sheets because the company’s website was inaccessible to her screen reader. While acknowledging Judge Swain’s opinion in citation, she arrived at a very different conclusion.
The Court agrees with the majority view in this District that a standalone website is a place of public accommodation. The ADA's text is ambiguous—the statute, which was passed in 1990, does not specify whether a "place of public accommodation" includes online "places." But the law's legislative history and "primary purpose" reflect an attempt to make everyday commerce broadly accessible to people with disabilities. Castellano v. City of New York, 142 F.3d 58, 67 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see Chalas, 673 F. Supp. 3d at 344. As the Second Circuit held in Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., "Title III's mandate that the disabled be accorded 'full and equal enjoyment of the goods, [and] services . . . of any place of public accommodation' suggests . . . that the statute was meant to guarantee them more than mere physical access." 198 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)). The internet and its associated technologies have opened countless doors for people with disabilities. "It would be a cruel irony" to find websites beyond the reach of the ADA, "render[ing] the legislation intended to emancipate the disabled from the bonds of isolation and segregation obsolete when its objective is increasingly within reach." Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381, 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). Jennifer Adams' website is a place of public accommodation, so Brown has stated a claim under the ADA.
Brown v. Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28842, *7-8. As readers know, I am not a fan of the nexus approach so this opinion sits fine with me.
Minnesota District Court Also Rejects Nexus Approach
On February 6, Judge Katherine Menendez put the Eighth Circuit tentatively with the First and Seventh Circuit in rejecting the nexus requirement and holding that purely online companies are places of public accommodation under the ADA. Tammy Frost, a blind knitter, sued Lion Brand Yarn Company, the oldest producer of knitting and craft yarn in the United States. Lion Brand moved to dismiss, claiming that the ADA only applies to physical structures.
Because no court in the Eighth Circuit had addressed this issue, Judge Menendez was going out on a limb. For judges, that doesn’t mean just flipping a coin. Instead, it means going through an exhaustive analysis and explaining her reasoning. I won’t quote the pages and pages of analysis, but will try to boil it down into a few bullet points.
- The major circuit court nexus decisions (e.g. Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998); and Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1997)) shouldn’t apply to website cases because they all focused on the content of insurance policies—a very different thing than websites.
- There is nothing to suggest that Congress intended the ADA to only apply to physical structures. Instead, the ADA was intended to ensure the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.
- The term “place” does not necessarily mean a physical place—it can be a area with indefinite boundaries.
Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21272, *19-29 (D. Minn. 2025). Because it’s a pretty big deal, here’s a link to the Frost opinion.
Pennsylvania Introduces HB 485
On February 4, a number of Democratic representatives introduced HB 485, which applies to any public entity (except educational institutions and a handful of other carve-outs). It requires the state’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) to develop digital accessibility standards based on WCAG. It also requires all public entities to develop and submit a written plan for meeting these standards by July 1, 2026, with full implementation of the plan by July 1, 2028. The bill also requires the CIO to approve minimum standards and criteria for procuring accessible technology and states that these standards must be followed when upgrading or replacing existing technology.
I suspect that 2025 will bring a number of similar laws as states grapple with making their technologies accessible. After all, resources for digital accessibility are a lot easier to source at a local level. It makes sense that states will want to make things easier for their counties and municipalities by creating laws and regulations that dovetail with the federal web accessibility requirements. If you would like to read the bill, I’ve downloaded a local copy of HB 485.
New Mexico Introduces New Accessibility Act that Includes a Private Right of Action
On February 10, four democratic representatives from New Mexico introduced House Bill 120 calling for a new Accessibility Act for the state. The bill creates a new Office of Accessibility and requires all state agencies to meet WCAG 2.1 A/AA (which must be met by April 1. 2026) and the Department of Justice’s ADA Standards for the built environment (no specific deadline provided). The bill also requires the Office of Accessibility to provide assistance to state agencies (e.g. training, technical assistance, etc) and to provide a written report to the governor every two years on accessibility compliance. The bill also authorizes a private right of action for injunctive relief and attorney fees. Here is a link to the New Mexico bill.
On February 6, Senators Laura Murphy (D) and Erica Harriss (R) introduced the Stop Abusive Website Access Litigation Act to the Illinois General Assembly. The act would authorize the Illinois Attorney General to sue web accessibility plaintiffs if they believe their actions constitute “abusive litigation.” The bill then outlines a number of factors that the court can use to determine if the litigation is abusive, such as the difficulty in defending the lawsuit or the number of similar claims brought by the plaintiff or their attorney.
I’m always amused when I see bills like this because they just seem to me like pandering to voters. First, Illinois has never been an active venue for web accessibility, despite the fact that it’s one of the easiest places to sue online companies under the ADA. Second, judges don’t like abusive plaintiffs any more than defendants do—as evidenced by the court’s treatment of Mark Rozenberg back in 2023. Eventually, these realities will settle in and the bill will fade away quietly. At least the sponsors get to say they stuck up for the little guy, which makes great fodder on the campaign trail. Here is a copy of the Illinois bill in case you want to read it.
Disclaimer
Nothing in this post should be interpreted as legal advice or as forming an attorney-client relationship. It is offered for educational purposes only. You should always contact a qualified attorney in your area to discuss your legal rights and responsibilities.
Want to See More Content Like This?
Want the latest blog posts, videos, white papers, and announcements? Sign up for our mailing list and stay in the loop!
We're Here to Help When You're Ready
Take a deep breath. Then feel free to reach out to our team when you're ready to discuss your accessibility needs.
0 comments on “Legal Update: February 2025”