Happy Holidays from Converge Accessibility! This year has been a fantastic one at Converge, ending on a high note. It’s been busy and we have plenty of work lined up for 2026! And not to be outdone, Lexis has responded with a few more cases than usual to contemplate over leftover fruitcake and mulled wine as you sit by the fire.
Missouri Republicans Flood the Zone with Anti-ADA Website Lawsuit Bills
In their 2026 legislative session, Missouri has introduced a wave of nearly identical bills—2026 HB 1674, HB 1694, HB 1755, HB 1780, HB 1842, HB 2150, HB 2312, SB 907, SB 1154, and SB 1471—all sponsored by Missouri Republican representatives and all advocating the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation.” Each bill would give Missouri courts (and the Missouri Attorney General) the power to decide if a federal ADA website lawsuit is “abusive” based on factors such as the number of lawsuits filed, whether a business took prompt action to fix barriers, and if the suit appears intended to secure quick settlements rather than improve accessibility. If a court determines abuse, it could award attorney’s fees, costs, and punitive damages to the defendants. Although the bill numbers differ, their substance is virtually identical. Sponsors claim the measure is necessary to shield small businesses from predatory litigation.
While the Eighth Circuit isn’t exactly a hotspot for web accessibility litigation like the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, it does have some abusive litigants, as we mentioned back in August. Well, those attorneys have stirred up a hornet’s nest and it looks like the legislature is responding. While many of us in other parts of the country may see St. Louis as a charming midwestern city, it’s apparently a legal hellhole.
Federal Courts Really Don’t Want to Hear Your Unruh Complaints
Last month, we discussed why companies often prefer to avoid federal court when facing Unruh Act claims, especially those related to website accessibility. Paradoxically, some defendants still attempt to remove such cases—only to get promptly kicked back to state court. That’s exactly what happened in Sandoval v. Visionworks of Am., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251914 (C.D. Cal. 2025), where a blind plaintiff sued under California’s Unruh Act after being unable to buy sunglasses through Visionworks’ website. Although Sandoval initially filed in state court and capped his damages at $74,999, Visionworks removed the case to federal court, claiming that attorney’s fees and injunctive relief might push the total value above the $75,000 threshold.
Judge David Carter wasn’t buying it. In a straightforward opinion, he ruled that defendants cannot rely on jurisdictional guesswork—especially when the plaintiff expressly pleads damages below the diversity threshold for federal court. The court remanded the case back to state court. The message is clear: if parties want to contest Unruh claims, they’d better be prepared to do it on California turf.
Another Round for Fernandez — and the Same Result
Back in October, we discussed Fernandez v. Scanpan USA, Inc., where a federal court in the Southern District of New York dismissed an ADA website case against a cookware company that sold products online but had no physical storefront. Now, in Fernandez v. Gainful Health, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256003 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2025), the same plaintiff brought nearly identical claims—this time against an online-only nutrition supplement company. Once again, the court dismissed the ADA claim, ruling that websites not connected to any physical retail location aren’t considered “places of public accommodation” under Title III.
This time, it was Judge Arun Subramanian who rejected the plaintiff’s argument and dismissed the claim with prejudice, ruling that any revision would be pointless. The court also chose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining city law claims. In the SDNY, it’s clear that plaintiffs will have a hard time suing purely online businesses, unless they happen to draw the right judge.
Terms of (No) Service: What Happens When Accessibility Promises Are Disclaimed
In Herrera v. Grove Bay Hospitality Group, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262642 (S.D. Fla. 2025), a Miami restaurant was sued over its website being inaccessible. The restaurant then attempted to bring its web developer, Popmenu, into the case by filing a third-party complaint. After settling with the plaintiff, only the lawsuit between the restaurant and its web developer remained. The restaurant claimed that Popmenu had misrepresented the accessibility of its platform and should be liable to the plaintiff. However, the court dismissed the complaint entirely—and the reason is noteworthy: buried in its subscription agreement, Popmenu included a hyperlink to its Terms of Service, which stated,
[Popmenu] does not warrant that the services will satisfy or ensure compliance with any legal obligations or laws or regulations that may be applicable to you, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ('ADA').
[Popmenu does] not represent or warrant that the services comply with the ADA's requirements for websites … [and is] not responsible for losses resulting from claims against you that your client sites or the services are not in compliance with the ADA.
Because Grove Bay agreed to its subscription agreement that included a hyperlink to the Terms of Service, the court concluded that it couldn’t claim to be “wholly without fault” (as required for indemnity), nor could it reasonably argue that Popmenu had misrepresented anything. The result stands in with Randolph v. Dillards, which you may recall from our April post. In Randolph, Dillard’s tried to enforce an online arbitration clause hidden in its website’s Terms of Use—but the plaintiff challenged whether she could have meaningfully consented to those terms in the first place, given the alleged inaccessibility of the site. In Herrera, by contrast, it was the business—not the disabled plaintiff—who was bound by the fine print. These two cases demonstrate an important lesson for businesses and vendors alike: read the fine print because contracts matter.
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. | Introduced as nine separate bills in early December 2025 |
| 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. The current two-year session ends of January 13, 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. |
| 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: December 2025”