ADA Law, Regulations & Standards

Plain-English breakdowns of every federal law, regulation, WCAG standard, state law, and court ruling that affects digital accessibility. Each reference explains who it applies to, key deadlines, and potential penalties.

Federal Laws

Core federal legislation establishing accessibility requirements in the United States.

Federal Lawfederal

ADA Title I: Employment

Title I of the ADA prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies, and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers with 15 or more employees must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants and employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship.

Federal Lawfederal

ADA Title II: Public Services

Title II of the ADA prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against people with disabilities in all services, programs, and activities. This includes public transportation, court systems, voting, education, and, following the 2024 rulemaking, websites and mobile applications. It is one of the most frequently cited titles in digital accessibility enforcement.

Federal Lawfederal

ADA Title III: Public Accommodations

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation operated by private entities. This includes restaurants, hotels, theaters, retail stores, doctors offices, and increasingly, websites and digital platforms. Title III is the basis for most ADA web accessibility lawsuits against private businesses.

Federal Lawfederal

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Section 504 was the first federal civil rights law to protect people with disabilities. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. This broad reach covers public schools, universities, hospitals, social service agencies, and any other organization that receives federal funds, making it a foundational law for disability rights.

Federal Lawfederal

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

Section 508 requires federal agencies to ensure that their electronic and information technology (ICT) is accessible to people with disabilities, both employees and members of the public. The 2017 refresh aligned Section 508 standards with WCAG 2.0 Level AA, establishing a concrete technical benchmark for federal digital accessibility.

Federal Regulations & Guidance

Rules and formal guidance issued by federal agencies that interpret and enforce accessibility laws.

WCAG Standards

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the W3C — the international benchmark for digital accessibility.

WCAG Standardfederal

WCAG 2.0

WCAG 2.0 is the foundational web accessibility standard published by the W3C in December 2008. It provides 12 guidelines organized under four principles (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust) with three conformance levels (A, AA, AAA). WCAG 2.0 Level AA is incorporated into Section 508 and remains the baseline for most accessibility compliance programs worldwide.

WCAG Standardfederal

WCAG 2.1

WCAG 2.1 extends WCAG 2.0 with 17 new success criteria addressing mobile accessibility, low vision users, and people with cognitive and learning disabilities. Published in June 2018, WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the standard adopted by the DOJ's 2024 Title II web accessibility rule and is the current recommended benchmark for digital accessibility compliance.

WCAG Standardfederal

WCAG 2.2

WCAG 2.2 is the latest completed version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, published in October 2023. It adds 9 new success criteria to WCAG 2.1, with a strong focus on cognitive accessibility, improved authentication methods, and consistent help mechanisms. WCAG 2.2 also removed one WCAG 2.0 criterion (4.1.1 Parsing) as obsolete.

WCAG Standardfederal

WCAG 3.0 (Draft)

WCAG 3.0 is a major in-progress overhaul of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that reimagines how accessibility is measured and reported. It introduces a new scoring model, expands scope beyond web content to all digital content and applications, and uses plain language outcomes instead of technical success criteria. WCAG 3.0 is still in Working Draft status and is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation for several more years.

State Accessibility Laws

State-level legislation that supplements or extends federal accessibility requirements.

State LawCA

California Unruh Civil Rights Act

The California Unruh Civil Rights Act is a state civil rights law that provides broader protections than the federal ADA, including a minimum of $4,000 in statutory damages per violation. California courts have held that ADA violations automatically constitute Unruh Act violations, making California the most active state for web accessibility litigation due to the availability of monetary damages not available under federal ADA Title III.

State LawFL

Florida Accessibility Laws

Florida has enacted several laws addressing disability accessibility, including the Florida Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Implementation Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Notably, Florida passed legislation in 2021 and 2023 aimed at curbing what legislators characterized as abusive ADA accessibility lawsuits, establishing specific procedural requirements and limitations that affect web accessibility litigation in the state.

State LawIL

Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act

The Illinois Information Technology Accessibility Act (ITAA) requires all Illinois state agencies and universities to ensure that their websites, information technology systems, and electronic content are accessible to people with disabilities. Enacted in 2007, the ITAA was one of the earliest state laws specifically addressing digital accessibility and references the Section 508 standards and WCAG as its benchmarks.

State LawNY

New York Human Rights Law

The New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law provide extensive disability discrimination protections that complement and, in some cases, exceed the federal ADA. New York is the second most active jurisdiction for web accessibility lawsuits, with both state and city laws offering compensatory damages and broader coverage than federal Title III. New York City's law is considered one of the most protective civil rights statutes in the country.

State LawTX

Texas Accessibility Standards

Texas has its own Accessibility Standards (TAS) for the built environment and Chapter 2054 of the Texas Government Code, which requires state agencies and institutions of higher education to comply with web accessibility standards. The Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) oversees state agency technology accessibility, and Texas was one of the first states to establish specific web accessibility requirements for government websites.

Key Court Rulings

Landmark court decisions that have shaped how accessibility laws are interpreted and enforced.

Court Rulingfederal

Domino's Pizza v. Robles (2019)

In this landmark Ninth Circuit decision, the court held that the ADA applies to Domino's Pizza's website and mobile app, rejecting the company's argument that the lack of specific DOJ web accessibility regulations meant websites were not covered. The court ruled that the ADA's requirement that places of public accommodation provide full and equal enjoyment extends to websites and mobile apps with a nexus to a physical location. The Supreme Court declined to hear Domino's appeal, letting the ruling stand.

Court Rulingfederal

Gil v. Winn-Dixie (2017/2021)

Gil v. Winn-Dixie was the first ADA web accessibility case to go to a full federal trial. The district court ruled in favor of the blind plaintiff, finding Winn-Dixie's website inaccessible. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on appeal in 2021, holding that a website is not itself a place of public accommodation under the ADA and that the plaintiff lacked standing because the website's inaccessibility did not prevent him from accessing the physical store. This created a significant circuit split with the Ninth Circuit's Robles decision.

Court Rulingfederal

Murphy v. Eyebobs (Overlay Case)

Murphy v. Eyebobs and similar cases represent a growing body of litigation challenging the effectiveness of accessibility overlay tools. In these cases, plaintiffs who are blind or visually impaired have sued businesses whose websites used accessibility overlays (such as accessiBe, AudioEye, and similar products) and argued that the overlays did not actually make the websites accessible. These cases have undermined the marketing claims of overlay vendors and reinforced that automated overlay solutions do not constitute ADA compliance.