ADA Website Accessibility Demand Letters and Lawsuits in California

Last updated: October 2026

An ADA website accessibility demand letter claims that a business's website cannot be used with a screen reader and demands money plus a remediation plan. In California these letters carry extra weight because the Unruh Civil Rights Act treats an ADA violation as a state-law violation with minimum statutory damages of $4,000 per offense. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. defends online retailers and service businesses in Orange County, Los Angeles, and across California against these letters and the lawsuits that follow.

Call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online to discuss an ADA website demand your business has received.

Why online businesses get these letters

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation. (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).) The statute was written in 1990 with stores, restaurants, and hotels in mind. Courts have since applied it to websites connected to a business with physical locations.

In the Ninth Circuit's leading case, a blind customer could not use a pizza chain's website and app. The court held the ADA applied because they connected customers to the chain's physical restaurants, and it left open the no-connection case. (Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 913 F.3d 898, 905-906 & fn. 6.)

Most of these letters are produced at volume. A repeat plaintiff runs an automated scan, finds unlabeled images or form fields, and sends the same letter to dozens of businesses. The standard cited is almost always WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, which is a private industry standard, not a statute. A court may order WCAG compliance as a remedy after liability is found, but it is not the legal test. (Robles, supra, 913 F.3d at p. 907.)

What the letter usually demands

Two things: money and a remediation agreement. The money figure is typically pitched just below the cost of a defense. The remediation piece asks you to commit to WCAG conformance on a schedule. The letter will threaten suit in state court under the Unruh Act, in federal court under the ADA, or both.

Plaintiffs choose the forum. A federal complaint pairs the ADA claim with an Unruh damages claim; a state complaint often pleads Unruh alone. The forum affects standing rules, pace, and cost.

The California overlay: Unruh and the $4,000 floor

For a private plaintiff, the federal ADA is mostly about injunctive relief and attorney fees. The dollar demand comes from California.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that a violation of an individual's rights under the ADA is also a violation of Unruh. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f).) The remedy is actual damages plus an additional amount, up to three times actual damages but in no case less than $4,000 for each offense, plus attorney fees as the court may determine. (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a).) That floor, multiplied by claimed visits, is what gives a routine letter its bite.

California also has heightened pleading rules and reduced minimum damages for quick fixes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.50; Civ. Code, § 55.56.) Those rules are written for construction-related accessibility claims, meaning physical facilities and building standards. (Civ. Code, § 55.52, subd. (a)(1), (6).) Do not count on them in a website-only case.

Defenses and pressure points

Not every letter has a lawsuit behind it. The points I look at first:

Nexus to a physical place. California's Court of Appeal has held that a retail website with no connection to a physical location is not a place of public accommodation under Title III, so the plaintiff cannot use the ADA to establish an Unruh violation. (Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1032, 1049.) For a purely online business, that is the first line of defense.

Intentional discrimination. Without an ADA violation, an Unruh plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination, and failing to fix a site after a demand letter does not by itself show intent. (Martinez, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1032, 1038.)

Standing. Federal courts require a concrete injury and, for injunctive relief, a real intent to return. California appellate courts have required a website plaintiff to show he visited the site, encountered the barrier, and intended to use the business's services.

Mootness. If the site is fixed before judgment, the injunctive claim may be moot. That does not erase an accrued damages claim, but it removes much of the incentive to keep going.

What a sensible response looks like

Do not ignore the letter. A default judgment in one of these cases is expensive and avoidable.

Within the first week, have an accessibility consultant audit the site against WCAG 2.1 AA and give you a written scope and timeline. Fixing the site is almost always cheaper than litigating about whether you had to. Send the letter to your insurance broker. Then let counsel answer it: short, factual, no admissions, with a request for the plaintiff's filing history.

Most of these matters settle once the plaintiff sees a credible remediation plan and a defense that knows the case law. Our guide on responding to a demand letter covers the preservation and insurance steps.

How we handle them

We start with the plaintiff's filing history, whether your business has a physical location, what the scan actually found, and the Unruh exposure. Then we negotiate knowing which claims would survive a demurrer or motion to dismiss. When a case is filed, we defend it in the Superior Court, typically the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana or the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles, or in the Central District of California.

Online businesses that receive ADA letters often receive website privacy demands too; our CIPA guide explains those. If a complaint has been served, start with our first 30 days guide.

Frequently asked questions

Does the ADA apply to my website if I have no physical store?

In California the answer has turned on whether the website connects to a physical place of public accommodation. A Court of Appeal has held that a purely online retailer is not one. (Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1049.) The area remains contested, and the facts matter.

How much can a plaintiff recover in an ADA website lawsuit in California?

Under the Unruh Act, a plaintiff may recover actual damages plus up to three times that amount, with a statutory minimum of $4,000 per offense, plus attorney fees as the court may determine. (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a).) Demands often multiply the $4,000 figure by claimed visits. The fee exposure is usually the larger number.

Is WCAG compliance legally required?

No statute requires it for private business websites. The Ninth Circuit has treated it as a possible remedy after liability is established, not as the legal test. (Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 913 F.3d 898, 907.) Conforming to WCAG 2.1 AA is still the best protection available.

Should I just fix the website and ignore the letter?

Fix the website, but do not ignore the letter. Remediation may moot an injunctive claim, yet it does not erase a damages claim that has already accrued, and silence invites a filing. A short response paired with a remediation plan usually beats paying the demand or saying nothing.

Talk to a California ADA website defense attorney

If your business has received an ADA website accessibility demand letter or lawsuit, call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is located at 327 Magnet, Irvine, CA 92618, and defends businesses in Orange County, Los Angeles, and throughout California.

This page provides general information about California and federal law and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the website, the facts, and the court.