Accessibility Failures: Famous Websites That Got It Wrong

Sydney Olympics 2000: The First Major Case

The first major web accessibility legal case in the world was not in the United States — it was in Australia, involving the website for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Bruce Maguire, a blind Australian user, filed a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) against the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) in 1999.

Maguire's complaint: the Sydney Olympics website was inaccessible to screen reader software. Specific issues included images without alt text, frames without descriptions, and a ticketing system that could not be navigated without a mouse. He requested that the site be made accessible — using the recently published WCAG 1.0 as the technical standard.

SOCOG refused, arguing that accessibility compliance would cost too much and take too long. The HREOC found in Maguire's favour in August 2000 — during the Games. SOCOG was ordered to make specific changes and pay compensation of AUD $20,000. The ruling established that WCAG compliance was the legal standard for web accessibility under Australian disability discrimination law.

The case had global significance: it was the first ruling that applied a specific technical standard (WCAG) as a legal requirement, and the first ruling that held an organisation liable for website inaccessibility. It established the template for the ADA website accessibility cases that would follow in the United States over the next two decades.

Target: The US Precedent (2006–2008)

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) filed suit against Target Corporation in 2006, alleging that target.com was inaccessible to blind users in violation of the ADA and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint focused on specific accessibility failures: images without alt text in product listings, a checkout process that required mouse interaction, and forms without proper labels.

Target's initial defence was that the ADA did not apply to websites — only to physical "places of public accommodation." The Northern District of California rejected this argument in 2006, ruling that the ADA did apply to target.com because of its "nexus" to Target's physical stores. Target customers used the website in connection with their physical store visits.

The case settled in 2008 for $6 million, with Target agreeing to maintain a fully accessible website. The settlement included an accessibility policy, a dedicated accessibility coordinator, and regular accessibility testing. The Target case became the foundational precedent for ADA website accessibility claims in the Ninth Circuit.

Domino's Pizza: Taking It to the Ninth Circuit (2019)

Guillermo Robles, a blind user, sued Domino's Pizza in 2016 after being unable to order food through Domino's website and mobile app. The website did not work with screen reader software, preventing him from placing an order. Domino's argued that the ADA did not require websites to be accessible, and that WCAG compliance could not be mandated by courts without specific regulatory guidance from the Department of Justice.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Domino's in 2019, affirming that the ADA does apply to websites and mobile apps that connect to physical places of public accommodation. The court rejected Domino's due process argument — that businesses could not be held to WCAG without formal DOJ rulemaking — finding that the ADA's general non-discrimination requirements were sufficient notice.

The Domino's case is significant because it reached the Circuit Court level and produced a published opinion — creating binding precedent across the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). The Supreme Court declined to hear Domino's appeal in 2019, leaving the Ninth Circuit ruling in place.

Winn-Dixie: The First Trial (2017)

Juan Gil, a legally blind user, sued Winn-Dixie grocery stores in 2016 after finding their website inaccessible. Unlike the Target and Domino's cases, which settled before trial, the Winn-Dixie case went to a bench trial — a trial before a judge without a jury — and produced the first judicial opinion after a full accessibility trial in US history.

Judge Robert Scola found Winn-Dixie liable in June 2017, ruling that the website violated the ADA. The judgment required Winn-Dixie to bring its website into WCAG 2.0 AA compliance within three years, train its staff on accessibility, and maintain an accessibility policy. No damages were awarded (the case was brought as an injunction request), but the legal costs of the case for Winn-Dixie were significant.

The case was later reversed on procedural grounds (the 11th Circuit found Winn-Dixie's website was not a "place of public accommodation" because it lacked the nexus to physical stores that the 9th Circuit had used in Target). This created a circuit split — different federal circuits applying different interpretations of the ADA to websites — that drove calls for DOJ rulemaking.

The NBA and Financial Institutions

The National Basketball Association's website was sued in 2019 for inaccessibility, with the complaint focusing on video content without captions and images without alt text. The case settled, with the NBA agreeing to accessibility remediation.

Banks and financial institutions have been frequent targets of ADA accessibility lawsuits, given the essential nature of online banking. Several major banks have faced complaints about inaccessible banking portals, account management interfaces, and loan application forms. Financial services regulators have increasingly included web accessibility in their examinations.

The Scale of Accessibility Lawsuits

ADA website accessibility lawsuits have grown dramatically:

• 2017: approximately 800 federal ADA website accessibility lawsuits filed
• 2018: approximately 2,300 filed
• 2019: approximately 2,500 filed
• 2021: approximately 4,000 filed
• 2022: approximately 3,200+ filed

The growth reflects both increased advocacy by disability rights organisations and the emergence of law firms that specialise in ADA website accessibility litigation, sometimes filing large numbers of similar complaints against multiple defendants.

The DOJ's 2022 Guidance

After years of calls for formal rulemaking, the Department of Justice issued guidance in March 2022 clarifying that websites of state and local governments are subject to the ADA's Title II accessibility requirements, and that WCAG 2.1 AA is the appropriate technical standard. In 2023, the DOJ proposed formal rules requiring state and local government websites to meet WCAG 2.1 AA by specific deadlines. Final rules were published in April 2024.

Private sector websites remain subject to ADA Title III but without specific regulatory standards — courts continue to apply WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 AA as the de facto standard based on DOJ guidance and prior case law.

Check color contrast →