By GIC Published on August 04th, 2025

Last updated on August 04th, 2025

April 24, 2026 is less than nine months away as of this writing. By now, almost everyone who works with government websites has heard this date repeated; it’s the pending deadline for the new ADA Accessibility Rules.

First and foremost, our concern should be with helping disabled citizens who are being unfairly kept from public information. But what’s at stake here for non-compliant organizations may not be fully understood. So today we’re going to dig into a few cautionary tales to investigate some real-world financial and organizational consequences of ADA non-compliance.

Penalties

A “final rule” was registered by the Department of Justice in 2014 regarding monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. This set the penalty for a first-time violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (under Title III) at $75,000, which increases to $150,000 for repeat offenders. However, these penalties were adjusted for inflation in 2024 and a first violation can now result in a $115,231 fine, increasing to $230,464 with a second offense.

Title III applies to public accommodations and commercial facilities, while Title II applies to state and local governments. There is no mention of these penalties under Title II, but the legal consensus is that the DOJ considers government websites to be public accommodations. This means these fines can potentially apply to any violation, whether in relation to a physical location or a government website.

The DOJ says that, in most cases, it will reach out to a municipality if they receive a complaint to discuss and try to address remediation before any legal action. The penalties are also discretionary and would only come as part of a DOJ lawsuit. They are also subject to reduction or elimination in the event of a settlement. However, any legal action would require timely remediation of the site/s, additional training and/or personnel, to say nothing of the legal fees an entity would have spent defending itself. It’s a potentially costly proposition.

Recent Stats

• 1,202 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in the U.S. in 2024.
• 48% of lawsuits were against companies that had been sued previously. 
• 142 municipalities in the U.S. have been sued since 2011 based on accessibility non-compliance. 
• Delaware is NOT among the top ten states in which this litigation has been filed.

source: https://www.accessibility.com/complete-report-2024-website-accessibility-lawsuits

Individual and Organizational Lawsuits

ELLERBEE v. STATE OF LOUISIANA

In 2024 a disabled resident filed a lawsuit against Louisiana because there were several state websites he couldn’t access using his screen reader. These included the Louisiana Department of Health’s website and the Department of Children and Family Services website. The defendant state agencies asked the judge to throw the case out, in part because the ADA accessibility deadline has not yet occurred and is in the future. The judge refused to dismiss the case, and the outcome of the case is pending.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-lamd-3_24-cv-00219/pdf/USCOURTS-lamd-3_24-cv-00219-0.pdf

---

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The precedent for website accessibility cases was established in 2014. That’s when a visually impaired person (joined by the National Federation for the Blind) sued the Seattle Public School District, claiming the district’s website was incompatible with screen readers. Seattle’s school board estimated costs between $665,000–$815,000 for website remediation, legal fees, hiring an accessibility coordinator, and staff training. 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/blind-parent-wins-battle-to-get-access-to-online-school-resources

---

PRICE v MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

In 2019, Manatee County, Florida settled a lawsuit by a disabled resident who said the county’s website wouldn’t integrate with his screen reader. The county paid the plaintiff $16,000 and agreed to bring its websites up to compliance within fourteen months or face a $1500 per day fine until completed. One of the municipalities in the county, the city of Bradenton, was so concerned about the potential for additional litigation that it controversially took its entire site offline altogether for several months.

https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article224953165.html

Justice Department Lawsuits

UNITED STATES v STATE OF ALASKA

On June 17, 2024, the Department of Justice issued a letter of findings that Alaska violated Title II of the ADA by denying voters with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in the voting process, failed to provide an accessible ballot for in-person voting, selected inaccessible polling places for federal, state, and local elections, and maintained an inaccessible elections website.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/us-v-state-alaska

---

UNITED STATES v COLORADO COUNTY, TEXAS

On June 14, 2024, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas secured settlement agreements with four Texas counties–Colorado, Runnels, Smith, and Upton–to resolve the Department’s findings that the Counties violated Title II of the ADA by maintaining election websites that discriminate against individuals with vision or manual disabilities.  The websites provide essential voting information and registration requirements.  Under the settlement agreements, the counties agreed to make all future and existing online election content accessible to people with disabilities.  The counties also agreed to hire an independent auditor to evaluate the accessibility of their election websites’ content, provide notice to visitors and users of the websites to solicit comments and requests about any accessibility barriers, designate an employee to coordinate its efforts, revise its procedures, and train relevant personnel.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/colorado-county-tx-election-website-accessibility

---

UNITED STATES v “SERVICE OKLAHOMA”

On November 16, 2023, the United States announced its finding that Service Oklahoma, a state agency, violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by maintaining a mobile application that is inaccessible to individuals with vision disabilities. 

On January 22, 2024, the United States executed a settlement agreement with Service Oklahoma regarding the accessibility of its mobile apps. Under the agreement, Service Oklahoma will ensure that any mobile app that it creates, administers, or maintains is accessible to individuals with disabilities and conforms to accessibility guidelines Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), Version 2.1, Level AA. Service Oklahoma agreed to take other corrective actions, including soliciting accessibility feedback and requests from the public, retaining an ADA coordinator, providing ADA training to employees, and reporting to the department. 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/service-oklahoma

To Sum Up

Our goal today is not to scare, but to prepare. The potential consequences for failing to meet the April 24, 2026 deadline are serious, but the legal risks for non-compliance already exist today. We recommend anyone who runs a website to evaluate and address any shortfalls in accessibility as soon as possible.

We have compiled some resources to help:

View All Blog Posts

---

• Accessibility Alert: Alt Text Shortage!
• Workshopping WordPress Accessibility