After a couple of quiet months, June had plenty to talk about. New York's federal courts managed to show off both faces of the Calcano line in the same few weeks and the Central District of California kept feeding cases into the wood chipper I described last month. On Capitol Hill, a bipartisan pair reintroduced the Online Accessibility Act, a bill I first wrote about all the way back in October 2020. And if you missed it, I also put out a separate post on the SBA's attack on the DOJ's Title II web rule at the end of the month. Let's dig in.
Different Shades of Calcano: Solis and Martinez
Before we get to the cases, a quick refresher for anyone who hasn't been following the Calcano saga with me. Federal courts can only hear real disputes, which means a plaintiff has to show a genuine injury — and in a web accessibility case, a plaintiff who has no real intention of ever going back to the website hasn't been injured by anything on it. That's the "intent to return" test. It sounds simple, but proving whether a plaintiff actually plans to return has turned into the whole ballgame. Two decisions this month happened to map that test out from end to end: how you plead it, how you lose it in discovery, and how far it can travel from the court that invented it.
Start with the good news for plaintiffs. In Solis v. Mott Optical Grp., LLC, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17641 (2d Cir. June 18, 2026), the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss a blind plaintiff's website suit — and the reason is a useful lesson in what "specificity" actually looks like. Solis didn't just say he wanted to go back; he pleaded that he'd visited multiple times, that he wanted a particular product (the Eyevan 145 glasses frames), why he wanted it, and that a first-purchase discount had drawn him to the site in the first place. That will get a serial plaintiff past Calcano.
On the other hand, Martinez v. Tusk, Ltd., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136932 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2026), shows the opposite side. This one came from Judge Komitee, who has taken about the most restrictive view of web accessibility claims of any judge on the bench ever since his Winegard v. Newsday opinion, which I covered back in August 2021. He granted summary judgment against a plaintiff whose deposition, to put it kindly, did not go well. Martinez testified that she merely "assum[ed]" a technical difficulty on the site was an accessibility barrier, and that a friend had already given her a similar Michael Kors satchel, so "there was no need" to buy one. Pile on her 51 ADA cases in eight months, and her professed intent to return collapsed into a "naked assertion." That will not get a serial plaintiff past Calcano.
Intent to Return Where Physical Presence Doesn't Matter
It's one thing to prove that a plaintiff has no intent to return to a physical store; it's quite another to prove that they won't return to your website. Almost all of the cases involving intent to return have come up in nexus jurisdictions (e.g., New York and California) but what about circuits where a physical bricks and mortar location isn't required? In Bennett v. Sweet Candy Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146956 (N.D. Ill. July 2, 2026), a Chicago court dismissed a website suit brought by a Brooklyn serial plaintiff who has filed 38 ADA complaints since September 2025. The court's reasoning is worth examining, because it explains why online cases are different: proximity means nothing on the internet "because everyone's computer is proximate," so a plaintiff has to articulate a concrete interest — and "beyond a generic interest in candy, Bennett fails to articulate concrete ties or reasons that support an intent to return specifically to Defendant's website."
Clickwrap Beats the Unruh Act: Herrera v. Victoria's Secret
Herrera v. Victoria's Secret & Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133059 (S.D. Ohio June 15, 2026), boils down to one question: is a clickwrap agreement enforceable against a blind plaintiff who couldn't read it — but whose sighted sister clicked it for her? The answer, at least here, was yes. Herrera sued in California over screen-reader barriers on the Victoria's Secret site, and the same barriers, she argued, kept her from ever reading the rewards-program terms that contained a forum-selection clause and an arbitration agreement. It didn't matter. The California court held her sister acted as her agent when she clicked "SECURE SIGN IN," the case got transferred to Ohio, and the Ohio court compelled individual arbitration, struck the class allegations, and swatted away California's McGill rule by calling her requested injunction private relief. Compare Randolph v. Dillard's, where a browsewrap arbitration clause failed precisely because a blind user can't receive reasonably conspicuous notice of terms on an inaccessible site. Same accessibility barrier, opposite outcomes — and the difference is nothing more than whether somebody's finger actually clicked the box, and whose finger it was.
A Few Other Cases
Vega v. Iveley, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143243 (D.N.J. June 29, 2026). A blind plaintiff alleged that he couldn't order ice cream from surrealcreamery.com. Courts in the Third Circuit read the ADA to reach only physical places and require a nexus to one, and because the complaint didn't mention a single store, the court dismissed it without prejudice. Surreal Creamery, however, runs actual scoop shops, but counsel forgot to plead that a nexus existed. I hope Surreal Creamery doesn't reward plaintiff's bad lawyering with a high settlement offer after the plaintiff refiles their complaint.
Potrykus v. Dorm Co. Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144522 (E.D. Wis. June 30, 2026). This is a mootness dismissal, and it follows the same rule I've been repeating since 2023: mootness fights are evidence fights. The defendant put on proof of a long-running accessibility program and a post-suit audit. The plaintiff submitted no evidence of any actual barrier at all. Chief Judge Pepper weighed the only declarations in the record and dismissed the case as moot without leave to amend. It's the same lesson as Jones v. Moscot back in March: if you show up with nothing, you lose.
Federal Legislation: The Online Accessibility Act Returns
Much thanks to my friend Jack McElaney for the heads up on this one. On June 30, Representatives Mark Alford (R-MO) and Lou Correa (D-CA) introduced H.R. 9539, the Online Accessibility Act. If that name rings a bell, it should — the long title matches the 2020 Budd/Correa bill word for word: amend the ADA to cover consumer-facing websites and mobile applications of private entities, and establish web accessibility compliance standards. I covered the original in October 2020 and analyzed it in detail at the time. That 2020 version created a brand-new ADA title, set the standard at WCAG 2.0 A/AA "substantial compliance," and required plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before they could sue. My take back then was that it wouldn't actually reduce litigation, because plaintiffs would just pivot to Unruh claims in California state court. The bill text hasn't posted yet, so we can't see whether the sponsors updated the standard or the cure mechanics this time around. What's striking is that Congress now has three competing models in play at once: H.R. 9539, H.R. 3417's standards-only approach, and H.R. 7328's exhaustion-only approach. I'll dig into the text as soon as it appears.
California Legislation
AB 649 deserves a lot more attention than it's getting. It sailed through the Assembly 78-0 and cleared Senate Judiciary 8-3 on June 30. The headline is a Small Business Right to Cure Program: a qualifying small business that gets a CASp inspection earns a six-year shield from Unruh minimum statutory damages on construction-related claims. But the piece that matters for readers of this blog is tucked into the amendments to Civil Code section 55.32. Attorneys who file complaints "alleging that an internet website is not accessible" will have to report them — and their outcomes — to the California Commission on Disability Access within five business days-- and attorneys can be disciplined if they don't comply. Given that most litigation settles without a compliant ever being filed, this effort could reveal some very interesting numbers.
Bill Tracker
Plenty of movement this month, and a genuine milestone worth pausing on: with Georgia's HB 1470 effective July 1 and Utah's SB 68 already in force, two anti-abusive-litigation statutes are now live law — while California's own attempt, AB 2190, quietly went to the inactive file. AB 649's cure-and-report approach now looks like California's alternative path forward. Three new bills join the tracker 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 sector digital platforms. May 2025 Legal Update | In committee since introduction on May 14, 2025; no movement. Senate companion S. 3974 referred to the HELP Committee March 3, 2026 |
| Federal | HR 5605 | The Medical Device Nonvisual Accessibility Act of 2025 requires nonvisual accessibility standards for consumer medical devices. October 2025 Legal Update | In House Energy & Commerce since September 26, 2025; no movement |
| Federal | HR 7328 | The Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act seeks to amend the ADA to add administrative steps before any web accessibility lawsuits against small businesses. February 2026 Legal Update | In House Energy & Commerce since February 3, 2026; no movement |
| Federal | HR 9539 | The Online Accessibility Act amends the ADA to cover consumer-facing websites and mobile applications of private entities and establishes compliance standards. Reintroduction of the 2020 bill covered in the October 2020 analysis | Introduced June 30, 2026 and referred to House Energy and Commerce |
| California | AB 649 | Creates a Small Business Right to Cure Program and extends CCDA attorney-reporting requirements to complaints alleging website inaccessibility | Passed Assembly 78-0; amended and re-referred to Senate Appropriations July 2, 2026 |
| California | AB 2190 | Amends the Unruh Act to limit web accessibility lawsuits; would push the WCAG 2.2 standard to January 1, 2028. February 2026 Legal Update | Stalled. Passed three Assembly committees, then ordered to the inactive file at the author's request May 21, 2026 |
| Colorado | HB 25-1152 | Requires insertion of new clause holding vendors liable for inaccessible IT sold to public schools | Enacted. Signed May 24, 2025 (Ch. 246); effective August 6, 2025 |
| Georgia | HB 1470 | Creates cause of action against individuals who file abusive web accessibility lawsuits. February 2026 Legal Update | Enacted (Act 458). Signed May 11, 2026; effective July 1, 2026 — now in effect |
| Missouri | SB 907 | Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation enables the state attorney general (or an affected resident) to sue over abusive web accessibility litigation, with a 90-day cure period; self-repeals if DOJ issues ADA web standards. December 2025 Legal Update | Enacted. Signed May 6, 2026; effective August 28, 2026. (Companion HB 1674 died in the House.) |
| New Mexico | HB 295 | Requires accessibility standards for state agency websites and creates a new Office of Accessibility. February 2026 Legal Update | Dead. Passed the House 57-6, then died when the session adjourned sine die February 19, 2026 |
| New Jersey | S 1016 | Requires state agencies to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. February-March 2024 Legal Update | Enacted, P.L.2025, c.289 — signed by the governor January 20, 2026 |
| Pennsylvania | HB 485 | Requires public entities to create a plan for meeting WCAG by July 1, 2028. February 2025 Legal Update | In House Communications & Technology Committee since February 4, 2025. The current session ends November 30, 2026 |
| Utah | SB 68 | Disability Litigation Amendments creates the Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation, making it easier to sue someone who claims a company's website is inaccessible. January 2026 Legal Update | Enacted. Signed March 23, 2026; effective May 6, 2026 — now in effect |
| Virginia | HB 2541 | Requires vendors to provide a VPAT/ACR and a plan for closing any gaps. January 2025 Legal Update | Enacted (Ch. 571), now in Virginia Code. First compliance tier effective April 24, 2026; smaller entities follow by April 26, 2027 |
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: June 2026”