ADA website compliance: keyboard and screen reader use
At a glance
US-06High42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), (b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii); § 12181(7); Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51(f), 52(a)
Peeky looks for accessibility barriers on public pages: missing alt text, unlabelled form fields, weak contrast and keyboard access problems.
Last checked against the source:
The rule
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against 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 by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” Section 12181(7) lists the private entities that count, among them any “clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment” and any “bank, … travel service, … pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment”. It has no general small-business exemption.
Two duties do the work for a website. A covered entity must make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures” where necessary, unless that “would fundamentally alter the nature” of what it offers. And it must ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services or treated differently “because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services”, unless providing them would fundamentally alter the service or “result in an undue burden”.
The statute says nothing about websites, and the Justice Department has not issued a regulation for private-sector sites.
Its 2022 guidance says that Title III “prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by businesses open to the public” and that the Department “does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards” for web accessibility. Businesses “have flexibility in how they comply”. The guidance names six common barriers: poor colour contrast, use of colour alone to give information, missing text alternatives on images, no captions on videos, inaccessible online forms, and “mouse-only navigation (lack of keyboard navigation)”. It points to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as helpful guidance.
Courts divide on whether a website is a “place of public accommodation”.
In Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, filed 15 January 2019, the Ninth Circuit held that the ADA applied to Domino’s website and app because they connect customers to the goods and services of its physical restaurants. It said the ADA applies to the services “of” a public accommodation, not only services “in” a place. It rejected the argument that applying the ADA without a specific regulation offended due process, and said an order requiring compliance with WCAG 2.0 was a possible equitable remedy, not a basis for liability.
The other view appears in Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, filed 1 August 2022. A plaintiff described as visually impaired sued an online-only retailer under the Unruh Act over a website that did not work with screen reading software. The Court of Appeal held that a retail website “without any connection to a physical space” was not a place of public accommodation under Title III, and that the complaint did not allege the intentional discrimination the Unruh Act otherwise requires. The opinion describes a federal circuit split: the First, Second and Seventh Circuits on one side, the Third, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh on the other.
California adds a second route. The Unruh Act (Civ. Code § 51(b)) entitles all persons to “the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”, and an ADA claim also counts under it (§ 51(f)). Section 52(a) makes a defendant liable “for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000)”, and attorney’s fees. The statute says each offense, not each visit.
Title III itself works differently. Private plaintiffs get the remedies of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a), which is “a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction”. The Attorney General can also seek civil penalties (§ 12188(b)(2)(C)).
What PeekWell checks and how
US-06 asks the same question as EU-10 and UK-12: are there barriers for keyboard and screen reader users on the public pages the scan visited?
The scan is automated. It tests key public pages against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 level AA and reports each barrier against the success criterion it fails. It puts alt text, form labels, contrast and keyboard access first, all four on the Justice Department’s list of common barriers, and checks landmarks too. Where the report frames the law for California visitors it mentions the Unruh Act and its statutory minimum, as enforcement context and never as a total for the company.
The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited, and the members area when you give it a sign-in. It does not port-scan, try to get in where it isn’t allowed or run any security test. Automated testing finds only part of what a person using a screen reader would run into, and some barriers need a person to judge. It cannot tell whether a site connects to a physical business, the question the courts argue about, and it does not check captions. A Passed means the expected behaviour was observed on the pages scanned. It does not say the site complies.
Why it matters for a company
In 2022 the Justice Department alleged, after a compliance review, that parts of the CVS vaccine registration portal were not accessible to some people with disabilities, citing form fields screen readers could not identify and a control that would take hundreds, or potentially thousands, of Tab presses to cross. CVS expressly denied violating the ADA and also denied that WCAG 2.1 AA was binding on it, except as the agreement provided. It agreed to bring its vaccine content to WCAG 2.1 AA and to test it, with automated tools and with disabled testers. The agreement states no payment. Robles is the court-side record: a blind customer’s claim against a company with physical outlets survived dismissal, and the claim went back to the district court.
Three consequences follow. A settlement with the Department can fix a target standard where no regulation does. Claims turn on facts such as whether the site connects to a physical business. And plaintiffs can lose: in Thurston v. Omni Hotels the jury found the plaintiff never meant to book a room, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that a website claimant under the Unruh Act must show a bona fide intent to use the service.
Smaller companies and larger companies
Title III has no general size exemption, and claims turn on facts rather than headcount. The threshold question matters: a business with physical premises faces the Ninth Circuit’s rule, while an online-only business has the argument the California Court of Appeal accepted in Cot’n Wash, which other circuits contest.
In a small company the site is usually a theme on a hosted shop platform, often with a free accessibility widget added in the hope that it settles the matter. The FTC’s order against accessiBe, announced 3 January 2025 and approved in final form on 22 April 2025, concerned a product marketed as able to “make any website compliant” with WCAG. The FTC alleged the claim was false. The order bars such claims without substantiating evidence and requires a payment of $1 million. It is not a finding about any customer’s site. It is a reason to test the pages whatever tool is installed.
In a larger company the pages are built by several teams and suppliers, and an app, a checkout and a store locator may each have different owners. CVS told the Department it had a dedicated accessibility team and yearly outside audits, and still entered an agreement with testing duties.
Enforcement cases
Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.
Larger companies
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
After a compliance review, the Justice Department alleged that parts of CVS's vaccine registration portal were not accessible to some people with disabilities. It cited incorrectly labeled form fields for screen reader users, and said people not using a mouse would need to press the Tab key hundreds, or potentially thousands, of times to move past one control. CVS denied wrongdoing and admitted nothing.
Read the US Department of Justice publication about CVS Pharmacy, Inc.Domino's Pizza, LLC (Robles v. Domino's Pizza)
A blind customer alleged that Domino's website and app were not fully accessible with screen reader software. The court reversed the dismissal of his ADA and Unruh claims, holding that the ADA applied because the site and app connect customers to the goods and services of Domino's physical restaurants, and sent the case back. It described an order requiring compliance with WCAG 2.0 as a possible equitable remedy.
Read the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit publication about Domino's Pizza, LLC (Robles v. Domino's Pizza)HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc. (H&R Block)
The Justice Department, joining a suit by the National Federation of the Blind, alleged that people who rely on assistive technology could not use hrblock.com to prepare and file taxes, download software or find a tax professional. The decree requires the site to meet WCAG 2.0 AA and to be tested with users who are blind or have trouble using a mouse. H&R Block denied the allegations.
Read the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, consent decree with the Justice Department publication about HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc. (H&R Block)Ahold U.S.A., Inc. and Peapod, LLC
After a compliance review, the Justice Department found that the grocery delivery site had unlabeled images, buttons and form fields, pop-up windows not announced to screen readers, inaccurate video captions, and JavaScript features unavailable to people who cannot use a mouse. Peapod disputed the findings and agreed to bring the site to WCAG 2.0 AA.
Read the US Department of Justice publication about Ahold U.S.A., Inc. and Peapod, LLCPriceline.com and Ramada.com
The Attorney General found that portions of the two travel booking websites could not be used with screen reader software. Under the agreements, graphics and images must have comprehensible labels, tables must have row and column headers, and input fields must be labelled to say what information is requested, following W3C Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines.
Read the New York Attorney General publication about Priceline.com and Ramada.comWinn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores)
A legally blind customer could not use the grocery chain's website, which let shoppers refill prescriptions for store pickup and link digital coupons, with his screen reader, and after a bench trial the district court ordered the site made accessible. In April 2021 the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that websites are not places of public accommodation and that this site was not an intangible barrier to the stores. In December 2021 it vacated its own opinion because the injunction had expired, so the ruling does not bind.
Read the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit publication about Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores)
Smaller companies
Midvale Corporation (Thurston v. Midvale Corp.)
A blind plaintiff could not read the menu or reserve a table on the website of The Whisper Lounge, a Los Angeles restaurant, with her screen reader, and its graphics were not labelled or were labelled inadequately. The court held that Title III applied to the restaurant's website and affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff under the Unruh Act, rejecting the argument that a listed phone number was an adequate alternative.
Read the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District publication about Midvale Corporation (Thurston v. Midvale Corp.)National Museum of Crime and Punishment
After a compliance review of the privately owned museum in Washington, DC, the Justice Department found that its website lacked features that let people who use assistive technology reach information, links, ticket purchases and online shopping, alongside barriers in the building and exhibits. The museum agreed to bring the website to WCAG 2.0 AA within 120 days.
Read the US Department of Justice publication about National Museum of Crime and PunishmentTeachers Test Prep, Inc.
Acting on a complaint, the Justice Department substantiated that the Mill Valley, California test preparation company's online video courses had no closed captions and its one-to-one tutoring was not accessible to people with hearing disabilities. The company had added captions during the investigation and agreed to keep its online content accessible.
Read the US Department of Justice publication about Teachers Test Prep, Inc.High Brew Coffee, Inc. (Mejia v. High Brew Coffee)
A legally blind plaintiff alleged that he could not buy coffee on the company's website, its only sales channel, because his screen reader could not tell him when an item was in the cart or read some of the text. The court dismissed the ADA claim, holding that a stand-alone website with no connection to a physical place is not a place of public accommodation under Title III, and noted that other judges in the same district had ruled the other way.
Read the US District Court for the Southern District of New York publication about High Brew Coffee, Inc. (Mejia v. High Brew Coffee)
How to fix it
- Try your own site with the keyboard. Put the mouse away and press Tab through the home page, a product page and the checkout. Note where you cannot reach a control, cannot see where you are or cannot leave a pop-up. WCAG 2.1.2 asks that focus can always move away, and 2.4.7 that the focus indicator is visible.
- Give every picture and field a name. Meaningful images need a text alternative (WCAG 1.1.1). Form fields need a visible label tied to the field, not placeholder text alone.
- Check contrast. WCAG 1.4.3 asks for a ratio of at least 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text. Browser developer tools show the ratio for any element.
- Set the page language. WCAG 3.1.1 asks that the language of each page can be determined by software.
- Treat a widget as an addition, not the fix. If you use an accessibility overlay, fix the underlying code as well and test the pages without it.
- Write down what you test. Keep dated notes of pages tested, findings and changes. The CVS agreement turned on regular automated and user testing.
- Re-scan. Run a scan after each change. A finding should disappear once the barrier is fixed. Then test with a screen reader yourself or with people who use one, because automated testing won’t catch everything.
<label for="zip">ZIP code</label>
<input id="zip" name="zip" type="text" inputmode="numeric" autocomplete="postal-code">Whether a given site is covered by Title III or the Unruh Act is a question for your legal adviser, and Peeky reports only what it sees.
Questions
Does the ADA apply to websites?
The Justice Department says Title III covers businesses open to the public, and its guidance treats their websites as part of that. Courts disagree on how far.
The Ninth Circuit applied the ADA to a site tied to physical restaurants. A California appeals court held that an online-only retailer's site was not a place of public accommodation. The rule has the detail.
Is ADA compliance mandatory for websites?
Title III bans disability discrimination by businesses open to the public, so a covered business is expected to keep its services accessible. The Justice Department has no regulation setting a technical standard for private websites and says businesses have flexibility in how they comply.
In its CVS settlement it used WCAG 2.1 level AA as the target.
What is on an ADA website compliance checklist?
The Justice Department's guidance names six common barriers: poor colour contrast, use of colour alone to give information, missing alt text, no captions on videos, inaccessible online forms and mouse-only navigation.
Peeky's scan covers the ones an engine can see on a public page, which are contrast, alt text, form labels and keyboard access. Captions need a person to check.
Can a business be sued over its website under the ADA?
Yes. A private plaintiff can sue under Title III for an injunction, and in California the Unruh Act adds damages of no less than $4,000 for each offense.
Plaintiffs do lose. In Thurston v. Omni Hotels a jury found the plaintiff never intended to book a room, and a California appeals court upheld that result.
Are there exemptions from ADA website rules?
Title III has no general small-business exemption. The limits come from two places.
The first is what counts as a place of public accommodation, which courts split on for online-only sites. The second is that the duty to provide auxiliary aids does not apply where it would fundamentally alter the service or impose an undue burden.
Filed with
The rule
Americans with Disabilities Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7), 12182(a) and (b)(2)(A), 12188
Read the rule (Americans with Disabilities Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7), 12182(a) and (b)(2)(A), 12188)Sources
The law
- 42 U.S.C. § 12182, Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations (US Code, govinfo)
- 42 U.S.C. § 12182, Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations (Cornell LII)
- 42 U.S.C. § 12181, Definitions (US Code, govinfo)
- 42 U.S.C. § 12181, Definitions, subsection (7) (Cornell LII)
- 42 U.S.C. § 12188, Enforcement (US Code, govinfo)
- 42 U.S.C. § 12188, Enforcement, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3 (Cornell LII)
- 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities (eCFR)
Guidance
- US Department of Justice, Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA (18 March 2022)
- W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Recommendation
- W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2, Recommendation
Decisions and cases
- US Department of Justice, Settlement Agreement with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. under the ADA
- Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, No. 17-55504 (9th Cir., filed 15 January 2019)
- Consent Decree, National Federation of the Blind and United States v. HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc. (D. Mass., 25 March 2014)
- US Department of Justice, Settlement Agreement with Ahold U.S.A., Inc. and Peapod, LLC under the ADA (November 2014)
- Thurston v. Midvale Corp., No. B291631 (Cal. Ct. App., filed 3 September 2019)
- US Department of Justice, Settlement Agreement with the National Museum of Crime and Punishment under Title III of the ADA (January 2015)
- US Department of Justice, Settlement Agreement with Teachers Test Prep, Inc. under the ADA (June 2018)
- New York Attorney General, Spitzer Agreement To Make Web Sites Accessible To The Blind And Visually Impaired (Priceline.com and Ramada.com, 19 August 2004)
- Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-03667-LTS (S.D.N.Y. 30 September 2024), memorandum order granting the motion to dismiss (RECAP copy of the court filing)
- Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 17-13467 (11th Cir. 7 April 2021), opinion
- Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 17-13467 (11th Cir. 28 December 2021), order vacating the opinion and dismissing the appeal as moot
- Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., filed 1 August 2022), No. B314476, quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 51
- Thurston v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (Cal. Ct. App., filed 23 September 2021), No. E074098, quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a)
Further reading
- FTC, FTC Order Requires Online Marketer to Pay $1 Million for Deceptive Claims that its AI Product Could Make Websites Compliant with Accessibility Guidelines (3 January 2025)
- FTC, FTC Approves Final Order Requiring accessiBe to pay $1 Million (22 April 2025)
Last checked against the source:
For information only. Not legal advice.