California ADA Website Lawsuits Are Shifting to State Courts. Here's Why.
Federal courts across California have increasingly dismissed website accessibility lawsuits that pair Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims with California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, often declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. As a result, plaintiffs' attorneys are filing more accessibility suits directly in California state courts, where Unruh Act claims carry statutory damages and lower procedural hurdles.
Why federal judges are rejecting state law claims in ADA website lawsuits
Website accessibility litigation in California has traditionally combined two legal theories: a federal ADA claim and a California Unruh Act claim. The ADA requires places of public accommodation to be accessible to individuals with disabilities, but it does not provide for monetary damages. The Unruh Act does. Plaintiffs' attorneys have long used this pairing to seek statutory damages of $4,000 per violation under California law, while anchoring the underlying accessibility standard to the ADA.
Federal district courts have grown skeptical of this strategy. Many judges have determined that Unruh Act claims predicated solely on alleged ADA violations raise distinct standing, pleading, and proof issues that diverge from federal ADA requirements. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, federal courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when those claims predominate the case or raise novel issues of state law. California federal courts have increasingly exercised that discretion, dismissing Unruh Act claims and, in some cases, declining to retain jurisdiction over the ADA claim at all once the state claim is severed.
This judicial trend reflects broader federal court concerns about the volume of repeat-filer website accessibility lawsuits, which some judges view as abusive litigation tactics rather than good-faith enforcement actions.
California ADA website lawsuits and what they mean for businesses
The practical effect of this shift is significant: plaintiffs' firms are now filing a growing share of website accessibility lawsuits directly in California superior courts rather than federal district court. State court offers several advantages for plaintiffs:
Statutory damages remain intact. State judges are not applying the same supplemental jurisdiction analysis that federal judges use to dismiss Unruh Act claims.
Lower procedural barriers. California state courts have different standing and pleading standards than federal courts, which have tightened requirements for ADA plaintiffs following various circuit-level rulings.
Local venue advantages. Plaintiffs can select county courts, which may offer more favorable procedural postures for these types of claims.
For businesses, this means that even companies with no physical presence in California face exposure to lawsuits filed in state courts, provided their websites are accessible to California residents and alleged to violate accessibility standards.
How should businesses respond to this shift?
Choose proactive accessibility remediation if your business operates a public-facing website and serves California customers, regardless of where your company is headquartered. Website accessibility lawsuits are not limited to large enterprises; small and mid-sized businesses are frequent targets because they often lack dedicated compliance resources.
Businesses should consider the following steps:
Conduct a Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) audit. Most courts and plaintiffs reference WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the de facto accessibility standard, even though it is not formally codified under the ADA or Unruh Act.
Document remediation efforts. Courts and opposing counsel often weigh good-faith compliance efforts when evaluating claims, even in jurisdictions where statutory damages apply regardless of intent.
Consult counsel experienced in both ADA and Unruh Act litigation. Because the legal landscape differs materially between federal and state court, businesses need defense strategies tailored to the forum in which they are sued.
What's next for accessibility litigation in California?
This jurisdictional shift is likely to continue as federal courts refine their approach to supplemental jurisdiction in ADA-Unruh Act cases. Businesses should expect state court filings to remain the dominant venue for these claims going forward, making California state court procedure — not just ADA compliance — a critical part of any defense strategy.
Staying ahead of accessibility litigation starts with addressing website compliance before a claim arises. Businesses that invest in remediation now reduce both legal exposure and the operational disruption that comes with responding to a lawsuit after the fact.
Frequently asked questions
Why are California website accessibility lawsuits moving to state court? Federal judges have increasingly declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims that ride alongside ADA claims, prompting plaintiffs' attorneys to file directly in California state courts instead.
What is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and how does it relate to the ADA? The Unruh Act is a California civil rights law that allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages for ADA violations, something the ADA itself does not provide.
Does this trend affect businesses located outside California? Yes. Any business with a website accessible to California residents can face a lawsuit in California state court, regardless of where the company is based.
What accessibility standard should businesses follow to reduce legal risk? Most courts and plaintiffs reference WCAG 2.1 Level AA, even though no single standard is formally mandated under the ADA or Unruh Act.
Should businesses still worry about federal ADA claims? Yes. While state court filings are increasing, federal ADA claims remain a legal risk, particularly for businesses that have not taken steps toward accessibility compliance.
Comments