Loading...
Loading content...
Active cases that have not yet been decided or settled.
On February 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest urging the federal court to reject the proposed Alcazar v. Fashion Nova class settlement, arguing the deal pays attorneys $2.52M while delivering little real accessibility relief — and that even the claims-submission website was inaccessible to screen reader users.
Defendant: Fashion Nova, Inc. (and proposed class settlement)Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California
Recent class action alleging the knife retailer's website barriers prevented a blind user from purchasing specific products, highlighting broken links and missing alt text.
Defendant: Buck Knives, Inc.Jurisdiction: United States (Federal Court)
Class action lawsuit alleging Rowing Blazers' e-commerce website is inaccessible to blind users, with significant barriers preventing navigation and transaction completion in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Defendant: Rowing Blazers Ltd.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by Wright County and the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Defendant: Wright County, Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS)Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
DOJ lawsuit alleging Uber violated ADA by discriminating against passengers with disabilities through wait time fees and service refusals.
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court
First major European Accessibility Act enforcement actions by advocacy groups immediately after June 28, 2025 effective date, targeting major French supermarket chains.
Defendant: Auchan, Carrefour, E. Leclerc, Picard SurgelésJurisdiction: France (under European Accessibility Act)
Lawsuit alleging HP's website and affiliated platforms contain missing alternative text, broken ARIA references, unlabeled buttons, and inaccessible navigation menus that prevent blind users from independently engaging with its digital services.
Defendant: HP Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Lawsuit alleging Pete and Pedro's e-commerce website is inaccessible to blind users, preventing visually impaired individuals from accessing the men's grooming brand's products and services in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Defendant: Pete and Pedro, LLCJurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Class action lawsuit alleging Disney's revised Disability Access Service policies discriminate against individuals with physical disabilities.
Defendant: Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.Jurisdiction: California State Court
Class action against the fast-casual chain for website accessibility barriers, notable because Sweetgreen had previously settled a similar lawsuit in 2016.
Defendant: Sweetgreen, Inc.Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York (SDNY)
Landmark class action trial addressing whether rideshare services must provide equal access to wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
Defendant: Lyft, Inc.Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Class action lawsuit claiming Target's website is not accessible to consumers who are blind or have low vision.
Defendant: Target CorporationJurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Class action lawsuit alleging Greyhound's website and mobile app are inaccessible to blind users, violating ADA Title III and state laws. Plaintiffs were charged convenience fees for booking by phone when website was unusable.
Defendant: Greyhound Lines, Inc.Jurisdiction: United States (Federal court, Northern District of California)