- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives and HR
- with readers working within the Basic Industries industries
Seyfarth Synopsis: A New York federal court recently dismissed a website accessibility action as "moot," based on the defendant's submitted evidence that it took "commercially reasonable" steps to make its website accessible and plaintiff's failure to submit any evidence to the contrary.
Some clients ask why they should work towards making their websites accessible when they will likely be sued anyway, given the huge number of website accessibility lawsuits filed each year. After all, in 2025, plaintiffs filed over 3,000 website accessibility lawsuitsin federal court.
In addition to ensuring that customers with disabilities can access the goods and services of the business, meaningful efforts to make a website accessible can also be helpful in defending lawsuits and deterring plaintiffs. Case in point: Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted a motion to dismissafter finding that the defendant's actions to make the website accessible rendered the alleged digital barriers "moot."
Like so many others, the complaint alleged that the blind plaintiff could not complete a purchase of a specific product (sunglasses) within a specific timeframe due to numerous design and coding issues that did not comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Issues included missing "alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events performed solely with a mouse, . . . [and] a host of broken links)".
In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant submitted a declaration from its Director of E-Commerce describing the "commercially reasonable" steps it had taken to make its website conform to the WCAG, and its actions after receiving the lawsuit to eliminate any accessibility barriers.
The Director of E-Commerce declared that the company had worked with a national digital accessibility consultant since 2023, that the website received one of the "highest scores" among that consultant's e-commerce clients, and that defendant continued to work with that consultant to test the website and "enhance its accessibility." The declaration further stated that the company worked with the consultant to investigate the alleged barriers, and no barriers were found that prevented individuals from purchasing the sunglasses, apart from a "low-severity issue" that defendant had since remediated. The declaration described the steps defendant planned to take to ensure "ongoing compliance," and attached a copy of the consultant's report that illustrated the consultant's audit process and findings.
The Court held that, with this evidentiary showing, defendant satisfied the "voluntary cessation" doctrine for mootness – that there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will reoccur, and interim relief or events "completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation."
Instead of submitting evidence to rebut the E-Commerce Director's declaration, plaintiff argued (incorrectly) that defendant could not introduce evidence outside the pleadings, and that defendant could not meet the significant burden of showing that the case was moot based on "voluntary cessation" (i.e., that the wrongful conduct would not likely recur). The Court's dismissal order focused on the lack of any supporting declaration or exhibits by plaintiff, and pointed out that in a "factual" challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction – such as defendant's mootness motion – a defendant may introduce evidence outside the Complaint.
The Court dismissed the case "without prejudice," meaning that the plaintiff can file an amended Complaint in the same case. The plaintiff can also file a new action in state court alleging New York state and city civil rights claims.
While the case may be far from over, the Jones decision is a favorable one for businesses that have undertaken documented steps to make their websites accessible. The decision suggests that businesses that invest in website accessibility are better positioned to defend against cut‑and‑paste accessibility lawsuits and to signal to the plaintiffs' bar that they are not easy targets.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
