Happy New Year from Converge Accessibility! The year is already off to a quick start, but from some unusual places like Utah, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Washington state. In fact, I didn't find anything interesting to report from the usual hotbeds of web accessibility litigation (California, New York, or Florida).
Utah Joins Missouri in Targeting Web Accessibility Lawsuits
Last month we looked at Missouri’s sweeping effort to clamp down on ADA website lawsuits through the so-called Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation, which would create a private right of action to punish attorneys and plaintiffs filing accessibility claims deemed predatory. Now, Utah is weighing in with SB 68 (Abusive Website Access Litigation), a bill that takes a similar approach. It creates a new cause of action allowing businesses—or the Attorney General—to challenge web accessibility lawsuits as abusive and seek attorney’s fees, sanctions, and even punitive damages.
Utah’s law creates a rebuttable presumption of abuse if the business fixes the alleged barriers within 90 days of receiving notice. While framed as a defense against serial litigation, the law could have a chilling effect on legitimate web accessibility claims. It also seems like a political stunt because Utah is part of the Tenth Circuit, which has the lowest number of web accessibility lawsuits in the country.
Wisconsin Court Affirms ADA Coverage for Online-Only Stores
Earlier this month, Judge Brett Ludwig of the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued back-to-back default judgments in Cazares v. Acro Int’l Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2216 (E.D. Wis. 2026), and Hippe v. Me Too LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2220 (E.D. Wis. 2026), both involving blind plaintiffs unable to complete purchases due to inaccessible websites. In each case, the plaintiffs resided in Wisconsin, while the defendants—both online-only retailers—were based in New York.
What’s striking is that neither plaintiff alleged the existence of a brick-and-mortar store-- nor did they need to. In Hippe, Judge Ludwig stated, “The Seventh Circuit has confirmed that ‘a place of public accommodation’ includes websites offering goods or services for sale. Id, at *4, citing Morgan v. Joint Admin. Bd., 268 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 2001). The court ordered both defendants to make their websites ADA-compliant within 180 days.
None of this should be a surprise to regular readers of this blog. The Seventh Circuit has never followed the nexus approach and always allowed ADA claims for inaccessible websites, even where there is no associated bricks-and-mortar place of public accommodation. This is cold comfort to defendants who happened to live in nexus jurisdictions (e.g., New York), however, if their online customers happened to include people in the Seventh Circuit like in this case.
A Stealth Standing Dismissal in Missouri ADA Website Case
In Myers v. Mary Jane Bourbon & Chophouse, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3295 (E.D. Mo. 2026), a federal judge dismissed a blind plaintiff’s Title III ADA claim against a Missouri restaurant whose website allegedly was inaccessible. While the opinion presents the ruling as a rejection of the plaintiff’s “nexus” theory, a closer reading shows that this was really a standing decision in all but name.
The court found no meaningful denial of access because the website was purely informational and didn’t offer any goods or services. Instead, it was just static. In the court’s view, that wasn’t enough to amount to injury under the ADA. As Judge Schelp explained:
Even taking all Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and providing him with all reasonable inferences in his favor, Defendant’s website does not meet the so-called nexus test he asks the Court to apply. Indeed, if this website met the nexus test, then Plaintiff’s logic would mean that the ADA also requires all advertisement signs to be tactile, all flyers and brochures to be printed in braille, and all barkers and street promoters to use American Sign Language. His logic is untenable. And all the while he has not even attempted to square it with the actual text of the ADA, a statute that ‘does not create a right to information.’”
Id. at *8-9 (quoting Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, 601 U.S. 1, 11 (2023) (Thomas, J., concurring)).
The Missouri “What’s It to You?” Defense
On the same day he decided Myers v. Mary Jane Bourbon & Chophouse, Judge Matthew Schelp issued a second ADA website opinion—this time making crystal clear that the case turned on Article III standing. In Myers v. Affton Diner, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3294 (E.D. Mo. 2026), the court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff, a blind man who had never visited the restaurant and lived 250 miles away, failed to plausibly allege that he actually intended to visit. Despite asserting a general interest in dining there someday, the court found that his “some day” intention was not credible given the lack of any concrete travel plans, personal connection, or logistical detail.
In doing so, Judge Schelp echoed the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Calcano v. Swarovski North America, which you covered in your October 2025 post. Just like Calcano, the court scrutinized Myers’s intent to return and found it too vague and conclusory to establish standing. As Judge Schelp put it, Myers had not answered the essential “What’s it to you?” question of standing.
Move Over Unruh? Washington State Reminds Us about WLAD
Earlier this month, our friends at Seyfarth Shaw flagged a major civil rights ruling out of Washington in A.S. v. PROVAIL, No. 86730-0-I, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 2554 ( 2025).
In PROVAIL, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals held that a nonprofit providing supported living services to people with disabilities could be held liable for sex and disability discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)—even when the alleged discrimination occurred in the client’s private home. The key holding was that WLAD’s “place of public accommodations” provisions apply not just to fixed physical spaces, but to services made available to the public, wherever provided..
Why does this matter for web accessibility? Because PROVAIL confirms that WLAD, like California’s Unruh Act, reaches businesses’ services—digital or physical—so long as they’re publicly offered. WLAD appears to offer actual damages plus attorney’s fees, Steele v. Lundgren, 96 Wn. App. 773, 779 (1999) and also doesn’t require showing intentional discrimination. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001)). Plus, because it’s state law and not the ADA, the Ninth Circuit’s nexus requirement doesn’t apply. This may make it easier for Washington state plaintiffs than California state plaintiffs to sue purely online companies for their inaccessible websites.
As a member of the New York, Washington, and District of Columbia bars, I can tell you that the Washington state bar is the sleepiest of the three. Stepping into a Seattle courtroom almost feels like stepping back in time to a more genteel era compared to courtrooms on the East Coast. While Washington law may be favorable to web accessibility, I just don’t see us becoming a hotbed for web accessibility litigation.
Go Seahawks!
I hardly consider myself an expert on Washington’s Law Against Discrimination. While I’ve lived up here for over 20 years now, I still find myself struggling to figure out where I am. I’m naturally a Seahawks fan, however. I don’t think it’s possible to live in this town and not feel this way. In my ethics disclaimer below, I'll let you know that I can't give you legal advice. But I will give you advice on which team you should cheer for on Sunday...
The Seahawks, of course. You'll be glad you did.
GO SEAHAWKS!!!
Bill Tracker
Absolutely nothing has changed here this month.
| State | Bill | Description | Latest Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal | HR 3417 | The bipartisan Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act of 2025 creates clear accessibility standards for private and public section digital platforms. May 2025 Legal Update | Introduced on May 14, 2025. | |
| Federal | HR 5605 | The Medical Device Nonvisual Accessibility Act of 2025 requires HHS and the Access Board to develop regulations and standards for accessible consumer medical devices October 2025 Legal Update | Introduced on September 26, 2025. | |
| Colorado | HB 25-1152 | Requires insertion of new clause holding vendors liable for inaccessible IT sold to public schools | Signed by governor on May 24, 2025. | |
| Missouri | HB 1674 | Enables state attorney general to seek damages from attorneys engaging in abusive web accessibility litigation. December 2025 Legal Update | Introduced as nine separate bills in early December 2025. May have passed House in January 2026 (unclear). | |
| New Mexico | HB 120 | Requires WCAG 2.1 AA for all state agency websites by April 1, 2026 and creates new Office of Accessibility. February 2025 Legal Update; January 2025 Legal Update | HB 120 passed the final House vote 60-3 on March 18 and passed the Senate vote 40-0 on March 20, 2025, but was vetoed by the governor on the same day. As the legislature adjourned on March 22, I think we can call this bill dead. | |
| New Jersey | S 1016 | Requires state agencies to meet WCAG A/AA and proposes that the state Chief Technology Officer create a certification process for state agency websites. February-March 2024 Legal Update. | Passed Senate March 18, 2024 and referred to committee. Signed into law by the governor on January 20, 2026! | |
| Pennsylvania | HB 485 | Requires public entities to create a plan for meeting WCAG by July 1, 2028. February 2025 Legal Update | Introduced February 4, 2025. The current two-year session ends on November 30, 2026. | |
| Utah | SB 68 | Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation makes it easier to sue someone who claims a company's website is inaccessible. January 2026 Legal Update. | Introduced January 2, 2026. | |
| Virginia | HB 2541 | Requires vendors to provide a VPAT/ACR and for vendors to submit a plan for closing any gaps. January 2025 Legal Update. | Approved by governor on March 24, 2025. Now chaptered into Virginia Code |
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: January 2026”