Legal Update: March 2025

The Second Circuit’s Calcano opinion now appears to be the most popular way that courts in the Second Circuit dispose of web accessibility complaints.

First, there’s the “intent to return” requirement. In Martin v. Brooklyn Bagel & Coffee Co., Ltd., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46091 (E.D.N.Y. 2025), the Eastern District of New York dismissed an ADA and NYCHRL lawsuit brought by Damian Martin, a legally blind plaintiff who alleged he was unable to access the defendant’s website using screen-reading software. Martin claimed that he wanted to explore Brooklyn Bagel’s menu and location information in preparation for visiting one of its stores, stating that he enjoys trying new restaurants with his mother and was looking for fresh, quick-service breakfast options. He also asserted that he intended to return to the website once accessibility barriers were removed. However, the court found these statements too vague and conclusory to establish standing under Article III. Citing Calcano v. Swarovski, the court emphasized that simply claiming a general interest in breakfast foods or a desire to browse a restaurant’s website is not enough. Martin failed to allege any concrete plans to visit the restaurant, did not know its location, had never purchased its products, and offered no explanation of why he was particularly interested in Brooklyn Bagel as opposed to other similar establishments. The court concluded that Martin's allegations amounted to little more than a “some day” intention to visit, which does not satisfy the requirement of a real and imminent threat of future injury. As a result, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Then there’s Calcano’s focus on “cookie cutter” complaints. A week after the Martin decision, the Southern District dismissed a web accessibility lawsuit in Wahab v. Surya Nature, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51775 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) for lack of standing. Angela Wahab, a blind plaintiff and serial litigant, alleged that she was unable to access Surya Nature’s website—where she hoped to purchase natural hair dye—due to various access barriers incompatible with screen reader technology. Although Wahab claimed she visited the website twice in two days and intended to return once it was accessible, the court held that her allegations failed to plausibly demonstrate a real and immediate threat of future injury, as required for injunctive relief. Central to the court’s analysis was the Calcano decision, which has become a benchmark for assessing standing in serial ADA lawsuits. The court noted that Wahab’s complaint closely mirrored the “cut-and-paste and fill-in-the-blank” format rejected in Calcano, and her generalized intent to revisit the website was deemed a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation. Further, the complaint failed to identify any specific accessibility barriers she personally encountered, aside from a vague reference to a broken link. Because Wahab had already amended her complaint in response to earlier warnings and still failed to cure the deficiencies, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend.