- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Insurance and Healthcare industries
- in Africa
The New Wave of Website Lawsuits Every California Business Should Know About
Recently, California has seen a sharp increase in a new category of civil lawsuits aimed at small and mid-size businesses. These cases now combine two distinct legal theories into a single complaint:
- Alleged failure to make a business website accessible to blind or visually impaired users in violation of the ADA; and
- Alleged illegal “trap and trace” or session-recording technology within websites that purportedly violates California privacy laws.
Individually, these claims are not new. What is new—and concerning—is how aggressively they are now being bundled together by a small group of repeat plaintiffs and their attorneys.
ADA Website Accessibility Claims: Often Unintentional, Still Costly
Website accessibility lawsuits typically allege that blind or low-visioned users cannot navigate a website using screen-reader software due to missing alternative text, improper navigation structure, inaccessible forms, etc. Many business owners are genuinely unaware that their websites—often designed years ago by third-party developers—may not meet evolving accessibility guidelines.
The problem is not just fixing the website. These cases often seek statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees, which can quickly push settlement demands into the tens of thousands of dollars—even when the alleged barriers are minor and easily correctable.
CIPA “Trap and Trace” Allegations: The Hidden Risk
Layered onto these ADA claims are allegations under California’s privacy statutes related to the use of website tools such as chat widgets, session replay software, analytics platforms, or customer-support plug-ins. Plaintiffs argue that these tools “intercept” communications without proper consent.
Many businesses install these tools for legitimate reasons—customer service, marketing insights, or performance monitoring—without realizing that they may be exposed to statutory penalties per visit or per interaction, dramatically increasing potential liability. California law is evolving as these legal theories play out in the courts. Variety Media LLC v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, Case No. B350578, is pending before the California Court of Appeal. The case arose from a putative class action over tracking pixel usage and CIPA claims.
Why Plaintiffs Combine These Claims
By combining accessibility and privacy allegations, plaintiffs believe they gain leverage. Defendants face higher exposure, increased defense costs, and pressure to settle quickly—even when the claims are defensible. This tactic has become a hallmark of high-frequency litigants who file dozens or hundreds of near-identical lawsuits. We have noticed that plaintiff firms are now joining together in lawsuits sharing their experience in pursuit of finding new businesses to target with higher demands due to the now combined allegations.
What Business Owners Should Do Now
Proactive compliance is far less expensive than reactive litigation. Businesses should:
- Conduct website accessibility audits;
- Review all tracking, analytics, and chat technologies; and
- Ensure clear, legally compliant disclosures and consent mechanisms.
If you are sued, early legal strategy matters. These cases are not “cookie-cutter,” and experienced defense counsel can often narrow claims, challenge standing, and significantly reduce exposure.
Our firm focuses on defending businesses—not feeding the lawsuit mill. We have decades of experience handling ADA and California privacy litigation and are easily searchable if you need guidance. Awareness is the first line of defense. Preparation is the second.
If you have questions about your website or have already received a demand letter, now is the time to act—not after costs begin to escalate.
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.
[View Source]