August was a quiet month in the courts. Lexis only gave me three interesting digital accessibility cases this month, and not one of them made new law. What they reveal is how the outcome of a web accessibility case depends on where it was filed.
Grossinger v. GoDaddy.com (E.D. Pa. 2026)
In Grossinger v. Godaddy.com, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177015 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2026), the court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s Title III claim with prejudice. Grossinger had sued GoDaddy, a domain registrar and hosting provider, over account access, billing, and the deletion of his nonprofit’s website. He did not allege that GoDaddy.com has any physical location (which it doesn’t)– only that his dealings with the company were “exclusively through web portals or other electronic means.” Not surprisingly, those facts decided the case.
While some district courts have teetered back and forth, the Third Circuit now seems settled on the position that the term “public accommodation” in ADA Title III means an actual physical place, and it covers a website only where there is a nexus between the online service and that place. Grossinger did not allege that GoDaddy.com had such a physical place, so the court held he had not pleaded a public accommodation. As Judge Beetlestone put it, “A website, by itself, is not a physical location and therefore does not constitute a place of public accommodation under Section 12182(a) of the ADA.” Grossinger at *13. The court was also not persuaded that Mr. Grossinger even had a disability. The court dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim because no amendment could add a physical place that does not exist.
Fernandez v. Buffalo Billfold Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2026)
Dismissing a complaint for failing to allege an intent to return is a common practice in New York courts. We started noticing the pattern in Loadholt v. Dungarees, Inc, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26006 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) and have discussed dozens of other cases citing Calcano v. Swarovski, 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022), where the requirement was stated most clearly. In almost all of these cases, the complaint is thrown out early at the “motion to dismiss” stage of litigation. Rarely do we see cases go through litigation and the back-and-forth of discovery only to be dismissed on the eve of trial at the summary judgment stage. This month, the Southern District of New York gave us such a case in Fernandez v. Buffalo Billfold Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186759 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2026).
Fernandez, who is blind and uses JAWS, sued over the screen-reader accessibility of Billfold’s leather-goods site. The court weighed the deposition record, found that “Fernandez’s deposition testimony clearly shows that he is merely a ‘tester’ who monitors whether places of public accommodation and their websites comply with the ADA,” id. at *11–12, and concluded that “no reasonable jury could conclude that he intends to return to that website to conduct a futile search for products the company does not sell,” id. at *14. Billfold had never carried the Brazilian leather he claimed to want.
For defense attorneys, this means pinning down a plaintiff to the specific type of product that they’re after– and then showing that it isn’t something that your client sells. But this also raises a logical quandary; how can a person with a disability discover the products that they want to buy without searching the websites of companies, and do the courts really intend to protect only the companies with a lousy inventory?
Herrera v. Beach Jads Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2026)
The third case worth discussing this month is Herrera v. Beach Jads Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180380 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2026), where a blind tester sued a clothing store and won a default judgment.
While I don’t normally pay much attention to default judgments, this one made a perfect foil to both the Grossinger case and the Fernandez case– illustrating that where a case is filed makes a big difference. First, there is the physical place requirement that gave Mr. Grossinger so much heartburn in the Third Circuit. In Herrera, this wasn’t an issue. After the 11th Circuit vacated its own opinion in Winn-Dixie, the circuit hasn’t clearly articulated how strong the nexus between a company and its website needs to be. For Mr. Herrera, it doesn’t have to be strong at all. The court noted that, “[a] company’s website violates the ADA when it serves as an ‘intangible barrier’ preventing disabled individuals from enjoying the goods and services offered by that entity’s physical locations—which are places of public accommodation.” Herrera at *6. Second, on standing, the Eleventh Circuit appears to accept a much thinner showing of intent to return than the Second Circuit. “[I]n the Eleventh Circuit, a plaintiff’s assertion that he intends to visit the premises at issue ‘in the near future’ is ‘sufficient to demonstrate standing for injunctive relief under Title III.’” Id. at *8. That seems to be a much lower bar than what Mr. Fernandez had to prove in New York.
DOJ Still Threatens the ADA Regulations
The Justice Department published its 2026 regulatory agenda on August 14, 2026 (91 FR 53016), and its plan to soften the 2024 Title II web rule is still on it. The entry, listed in the final-rule stage, states that DOJ is “considering whether to extend the deadlines for implementation of the final rule then publish a [NPRM] to reconsider whether some of the regulatory provisions imposed by the April 24, 2024 rule could be made less burdensome.” This blog has tracked the current administration’s weakening of the regulation, beginning with DOJ questioning the new rule last September, the Red Alert in March, the deadline delay in April, and the SBA’s weak case for killing the rule in June. The agenda entry is in line with that sequence.
The announcement, however, quietly threatens to unwind far more than just the ADA Title II web accessibility rule. Two of the regulatory actions include “Section 610” reviews of the entire Title II and Title III regulations. While these reviews are required every 10 years for economic impact under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610), they shouldn’t be ignored because DOJ could open a whole can of worms and undermine disability rights that are basic or essential for people with disabilities. Another issue to watch is a proposed regulation to “establish specific criteria for determining when qualified small businesses are presumed to be in compliance with their obligation to remove readily achievable barriers in existing facilities.” Given the hundreds of physical accessibility complaints filed each year by serial plaintiffs, this move by DOJ is understandable. Advocates still need to be on high alert to ensure that their rights are not lost in the process.
California’s AB 649 Is Dead
AB 649 is done. The bill proposed a small-business right to cure and extending the attorney-reporting rules to complaints alleging website inaccessibility. It passed the Assembly but never cleared the Legislature before the August 31 deadline. Because this was the second year of the two-year session, there is no carryover; anyone who wants it back will have to reintroduce it. I’m betting that will happen but this version is dead.
AI Federal Regulation Tracker
Last month's post on AI federal regulation tracking turned out to be really popular. So I'm adding this new section to round up disability-related updates from the Federal register for the last thirty days. All of this comes straight from Claude and Ken hasn't double-checked it.
Last month's post on AI federal regulation tracking turned out to be really popular. So I'm adding this new section to round up disability-related updates from the Federal register for the last thirty days. All of this comes straight from Claude and Ken hasn't double-checked it.
— Ends disability self-identification, data collection, and the 7% utilization goal for federal contractors. The duty not to discriminate survives; the tools that measured whether they do not. Final, effective Sep 21.
— Removes the right to an administrative judge before the agency rules on itself, bars class complaints, and caps Rehabilitation Act back pay at two years. Proposed. Comment by Sep 28.
— Would require proof of intent, reaching siting and design choices that exclude disabled residents without it. Proposed. Comment by Oct 9.
— The companion action. It covers race and sex rather than disability, but dismantles the same affirmative-action framework Section 503 borrowed its structure from. Final, effective Oct 26.
Bill Tracker
Two movers this month. Missouri SB 907 is now in effect. Its August 28, 2026 effective date has arrived, adding another in-force anti-abusive-litigation statute. California AB 649 is dead, as described just above; the tracker cell now reads Dead. Everything else is unchanged from July.
| 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. Calendared for apprpriations in August and passage by end of month or its likely dead or carried over. | Dead. Passed the Assembly 78-0, then held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file August 13, 2026; it did not clear the Legislature before the August 31 session deadline. No carryover — would have to be reintroduced in 2027. |
| California | AB 2190 | Amends the Unruh Act to limit web accessibility lawsuits (later amendments cut both ways); 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 (expanded to any public agency) | 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. Ultimately passed to include lawsuits involuntary dismissed (or dismissed for lack of standing) 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 — now in effect |
| 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, 2026 and implemented two years later. 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: August 2026”