ADA Title III

ADA Title III is the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by private entities that own, lease, or operate places of public accommodation. Enacted in 1990 and codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189, Title III requires these businesses to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations. Title III is the ADA provision most relevant to private-sector businesses and the one that has driven the surge in web accessibility litigation. While originally focused on physical accessibility — wheelchair ramps, accessible restrooms, Braille signage — Title III's reach has expanded as courts and the Department of Justice have recognized that the barriers people with disabilities face are not limited to physical spaces. The DOJ, which is charged with enforcing Title III, has taken the position since at least 1996 that the ADA's public accommodation requirements apply to websites. This position has been reiterated in formal guidance, statements of interest filed in court cases, settlement agreements, and the DOJ's 2022 web accessibility guidance document published on ADA.gov. While Congress has not amended Title III to explicitly address websites, the DOJ and courts have interpreted the law's broad language to encompass the digital realm. The statute lists 12 categories of public accommodations that collectively cover virtually every type of private business open to the general public: from hotels and restaurants to banks, hospitals, retail stores, entertainment venues, and educational institutions.

Title III matters because it is the legal basis for holding private businesses accountable for accessibility — both physical and digital. It is the provision under which the vast majority of web accessibility lawsuits against private companies are filed. **Title III drives the web accessibility litigation wave.** Over 4,600 digital accessibility lawsuits were filed in 2023 alone, the vast majority under Title III. This litigation has affected businesses of all sizes across every industry, from Fortune 500 companies to small local businesses. The legal fees, settlement costs, and remediation expenses associated with these lawsuits can be substantial — particularly when cases result in consent decrees requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. **Title III's scope is exceptionally broad.** The 12 categories of public accommodations are so comprehensive that they encompass almost any business that serves the public. If your business is open to the public — whether you are a restaurant, a doctor's office, a retail store, a gym, a school, or an online-only business (in many circuits) — Title III likely applies to you. **The DOJ continues to push for digital accessibility.** Through settlement agreements and guidance documents, the DOJ has established WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the expected standard for private-sector website accessibility, even though no formal Title III regulation specifies this. Notable settlements include agreements with major companies like H&R Block, Peapod, and Rite Aid, all requiring WCAG conformance. **State laws amplify Title III's impact.** Several states have laws that parallel or exceed Title III's requirements. California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, for example, treats an ADA violation as an automatic Unruh violation and allows statutory damages of $4,000 per occurrence. New York has similar provisions. These state-law claims are frequently paired with federal Title III claims, increasing the financial risk for non-compliant businesses.

### The Non-Discrimination Mandate Title III's core requirement is 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. This broadly worded mandate has been interpreted to require: **Barrier removal in existing facilities**: Businesses must remove architectural barriers in existing facilities where doing so is "readily achievable" — meaning easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. This is a lower standard than the new construction requirements. **Accessible new construction and alterations**: New facilities and alterations to existing facilities must comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. **Auxiliary aids and services**: Businesses must provide auxiliary aids and services — such as sign language interpreters, large-print materials, and accessible websites — when necessary to ensure effective communication with people who have disabilities, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the services or impose an undue burden. **Reasonable modifications to policies and practices**: Businesses must make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures to accommodate people with disabilities. ### Application to Websites The DOJ's March 2022 web accessibility guidance made its position explicit: "the ADA's requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web." The DOJ does not view websites as separate from the business's overall obligation to provide equal access. In practice, Title III web accessibility compliance means: 1. **Conforming to WCAG 2.1 Level AA** (the standard referenced in DOJ settlements and guidance). 2. **Ensuring the full user journey is accessible** — from landing pages through checkout, account management, and customer service. 3. **Making digital documents accessible** — PDFs, forms, and other downloadable content. 4. **Providing accessible alternatives** when digital content cannot be made fully accessible. 5. **Maintaining accessibility over time** as the website evolves. ### The Circuit Split A significant legal complication in Title III web accessibility law is the circuit split — different federal appellate circuits have reached different conclusions about when a website is covered: **Broad interpretation** (1st, 2nd, 7th Circuits): Websites can independently be places of public accommodation, even without a physical location. An online-only business can be subject to Title III. **Nexus test** (3rd, 6th, 9th Circuits): A website must have a connection (nexus) to a physical place of public accommodation. A purely online business with no physical presence may not be covered, but a retailer's website connected to its physical stores would be. **Narrow interpretation** (11th Circuit): Title III applies only to physical places, and websites are covered only if they directly impede access to the goods and services of a physical location. Despite this split, the practical effect is that most businesses with both physical and digital presences are covered in every circuit.

**E-commerce litigation**: A national retailer is sued because its website's checkout process cannot be completed using a screen reader. The inaccessible form fields, unlabeled buttons, and CAPTCHA without an accessible alternative prevent blind customers from making purchases. The case settles with the retailer agreeing to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA within 18 months, conduct annual third-party audits, and pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees. **Restaurant digital ordering**: A pizza chain's online ordering system is inaccessible — menu items are image-only without alt text, the order form lacks labels, and the checkout relies entirely on mouse interaction. A customer who is blind files a Title III lawsuit. The chain remediates its entire ordering platform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA and implements accessibility testing in its development process. **Healthcare portal access**: A medical practice's patient portal is inaccessible, preventing patients with disabilities from scheduling appointments, accessing test results, and communicating with providers online. The DOJ investigates and enters into a settlement agreement requiring WCAG conformance, staff training, and an accessible alternative (phone-based service) during remediation. **DOJ settlement**: The DOJ reaches a settlement with a major tax preparation company after investigating complaints that its web-based tax preparation service was inaccessible to screen reader users. The company agrees to make its platform conform to WCAG, retain an accessibility consultant, test with users who have disabilities, and pay a civil penalty.

**Waiting for a specific Title III web regulation.** Some businesses delay accessibility efforts because Title III does not have a specific regulation naming WCAG (unlike the 2024 Title II rule). This is a risky strategy. Courts are actively finding Title III liability for inaccessible websites, the DOJ is actively enforcing, and plaintiffs' attorneys are actively filing suits — all without waiting for a formal regulation. **Believing only large businesses are at risk.** Title III applies to businesses of all sizes. Small businesses, local restaurants, independent e-commerce stores, and professional offices have all been defendants in Title III web accessibility lawsuits. The plaintiff's bar has specifically targeted small and mid-size businesses in some jurisdictions because they are less likely to have addressed accessibility proactively. **Assuming that having a physical store makes the website optional.** Even if a customer can visit your physical location, you must still make your website accessible. The DOJ and courts do not accept "just come to the store" as an acceptable alternative to an accessible website. Online services must be independently usable by people with disabilities. **Settling lawsuits without actually fixing the website.** Some businesses settle web accessibility lawsuits by paying attorney's fees without committing to meaningful remediation. This invites repeat litigation from the same or different plaintiffs. A proper settlement should include concrete remediation commitments, timelines, and verification mechanisms. **Ignoring demand letters.** Many web accessibility claims begin with a demand letter, not a lawsuit. Ignoring demand letters often leads to litigation that could have been resolved less expensively through early engagement and remediation commitments.