Legal Update: July 2026

Richard’s strange month continued in Merrell v. Ralph Lauren Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152333 (N.D. Cal. 2026). Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. certified a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class, reasoning that "a single, indivisible injunction ordering Defendant to bring its website into compliance with the ADA 'would provide relief to each member of the class.'"

While the court certified the ADA class, it refused to certify a California class for Merrell’s Unruh claims. In doing so, the Court focused on a third kind of intent. Earlier in this month’s blog, we talked about “intent to return,” which is foundational to standing. In previous blogs, we’ve also talked about how Unruh claims against purely online companies require showing “intentional” discrimination. A third kind of intent is an intent to transact.  Specifically, "an individual bringing an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against an online business must allege, for purposes of standing, that he or she visited the business's website, encountered discriminatory terms, and intended to make use of the business's services." Merrell v. Ralph Lauren Corp., at *58-62 (quoting, White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019, 1032 (2019)). Proving this kind of intent is tricky. As the court explained, “someone may interact with a store locator because they are preliminarily interested in seeing if there is a store nearby to make a purchase, without yet having formed any intent to visit that store or purchase goods or services from Defendant.” Merrell v. Ralph Lauren Corp., at *63-64.

In fact, the court wasn’t even sure if Merrell met this bar.

Plaintiff Merrell presents a good example of the types of individualized inquiries that will be necessary to establish intent and statutory standing. In his deposition, Plaintiff stated that he visited Defendant's website because he was "maybe look[ing] at getting a gift for [his] significant other." He had not previously purchased anything from Defendant's stores or website. Plaintiff stated he "had problems navigating the products page, the book-an-appointment page, the main landing page, and the find a store locator page.” He "was unable to . . . make enough of a discernment of the page to be able to make an appropriate purchasing decisions," as the links and buttons "weren't very clear" and didn't provide "a prompt with more information or the ability to add to cart or purchase." At that point he "simply [left] the website." Plaintiff stated that "[he] didn't know really that there was any kind of in-store pickup or a . . . book an appointment [feature]." He "didn't try to schedule an in-store pickup," "did not look up directions," and "did not try to book an appointment."

Id, at *64-65 (citations omitted). Determining this kind of intent is highly-individualized and so a class action would be inappropriate.

To wrap up, we now have three kinds of intent in web accessibility cases—all of which should be in counsel’s playbook regardless of which side you’re on.

• Intent to Return. This applies across the board in any web accessibility case. It’s a constitutional requirement for standing to sue. It doesn’t come up often but finds a natural home with serial plaintiffs in web accessibility cases.
• Intent to Discriminate. This applies to Unruh cases that are not based on an underlying ADA Title III claim. In the Ninth Circuit (and with California being the only place one can bring an Unruh claim, the only relevant jurisdiction), this typically means online-only web accessibility cases. I’ve yet to see a plaintiff allege an Unruh-only claim against an online company with a bricks-and-mortar presence, however.
• Intent to Transact. This comes out of the California Supreme Court case, White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019 (2019), and applies to Unruh cases generally. Apparently, this line of cases means a plaintiff has to show that intended to fulfill a business transaction when they accessed a website and weren’t just “shopping around.”

At the same time, I can’t help but wonder if the Ralph Lauren court quietly shut the door on all class action web accessibility cases tracing back to NFB v. Target Corporation. This is because I doubt Target’s Unruh class (which gave rise to the $6 million settlement) would have met this requirement.