Accessibility Lawsuits by State: Where Risk is Highest

Two businesses can run nearly identical websites with nearly identical accessibility gaps, and one gets sued while the other does not. The difference often comes down to one factor that has nothing to do with the website itself: where each company does business.

Website accessibility lawsuits cluster. California, New York, and Florida account for the overwhelming majority of filings in 2025, and the gap between a high-risk state and a low-risk one can be the difference between a clean year and an expensive accessibility lawsuit. The reason is structural. Most of these cases are no longer filed solely under federal law. They are filed in state courts, under state civil rights statutes that add damages that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act(opens in a new tab) (ADA) does not.

For a multi-state business, that is a map of where your exposure concentrates, and most companies have never really looked at it. Below, we’ll break down which state drives the most filings, why their laws make them more expensive, and what multi-state operators should do about it.

Which States Have the Most Website Accessibility Lawsuits?

Three states dominate filings: New York, California, and Florida. Together, they account for a large majority of website accessibility lawsuits filed nationwide. New York led in 2025 with 1,021, followed by Florida with 961, nearly double its 2024 total. But federal filings only tell part of the story. California recorded just four new federal website accessibility cases in 2025, not because the risk dropped, but because plaintiffs moved to state court, where the Unruh Act allows them to recover damages the federal ADA does not. Texas is the rising fourth, with filing volume climbing year over year.

The pattern tracks a larger shift in where these cases are brought. According to AudioEye’s 2026 Web Accessibility Litigation Report, nearly 8 in 10 accessibility lawsuits are now filed in state courts rather than federal court. This is largely because state courts are cheaper and faster for plaintiffs, and state statutes often carry damages beyond those under the federal ADA.

Generic data visualization of a bar chart and line graph with a hand holding a gavel in front.

Why are Accessibility Lawsuits Moving to State Court?

State courts now handle the majority of accessibility filings because they are faster, less expensive to litigate, and governed by laws that can multiply damages. For example, under California’s Unruh Act and New York’s Human Rights Laws, a plaintiff can recover a fixed amount per violation simply by establishing that the barrier existed.

That single difference shifts things. A plaintiff can pair a state claim with a federal claim, clearing the federal bar for injunctive relief while collecting state-law damages on top. The federal ADA awards no damages to private plaintiffs at all, so the incentive to file lands wherever a state law attaches a price tag to each violation.

That’s the mechanism behind the geographic concentration. The states with the most filings are states whose laws make filing most rewarding, a shift our data traced back more than five years, with filings now doubled since 2020 and nearly 8 in 10 landing in state court.

California and the Unruh Act: The Costliest State to Get Sued

California is the most expensive state to face a website accessibility claim. Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, each violation carries statutory damages of at least $4,000(opens in a new tab), and a single inaccessible site can generate multiple violations. Because an ADA claim in California can be paired with an Unruh claim, plaintiffs there have a financial incentive that doesn't exist in other states. 

This is why California sees the volume it does. At $4,000 per violation, the damages compound fast. A single site with a dozen barriers is $48,000 exposure on the statutory minimum alone, before attorney’s fees and before a case reaches discovery. No other high-volume state attaches a price tag quite like California.

For how that exposure compares to federal penalty schedules, see our breakdown on ADA Compliance Fines.

New York Exposure: The Human Rights Law Overlay

New York rivals California for the highest accessibility filing volume in the country, but it gets there via a different route. California’s pressure comes from one statue with a big damage number. New York’s comes from layering.

A plaintiff in New York City can bring a federal ADA claim, a New York State Human Rights Law(opens in a new tab) (NYSHRL) claim, and a New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) claim off the same inaccessible website, and the city law is the most plaintiff-friendly of the three. 

There’s a venue story underneath the volume, too. New York’s federal filings actually dropped in 2025 after the Second Circuit’s Calcano v. Swarovski(opens in a new tab) decision(opens in a new tab) made it harder to establish standing in federal court. The cases didn’t go away; they moved to state court, where the Human Rights Laws live, and the bar to filing is lower. For a business with any New York footprint, that means the exposure isn’t shrinking. It’s relocating.

Florida and Texas: Rising Filing Concentration

Florida has long ranked among the top states for accessibility filings, and the concentration remains high (961 in 2025). Plaintiffs file there in volume, often through the same firms that file in New York and California. 

Texas rounds out the top tier. It ranked among the highest states for ADA Title III filings in 2025(opens in a new tab), and its concentration in major metros like Houston and Dallas makes it an emerging fourth hotspot for multi-state operators to watch. 

The concentration in both states is about filing patterns and plaintiff activity rather than a unique damages statute. Still, the practical effect for a multi-state is the same: more states with meaningful exposure than there were even two years ago.

Stylized web browser on a laptop showing a checklist with the accessibility icon at the top.

State Demand Letter Patterns: What to Watch Before a Lawsuit

Most accessibility disputes start with a demand letter, not a lawsuit. It's a pre-suit notice from a plaintiff's attorney asserting that your site has accessibility barriers and naming a settlement figure to resolve the matter. The letter itself looks similar everywhere, but what's behind the number changes by state, and that's the part multi-state operators should read closely.

A California letter, for example, is usually anchored to the Unruh Act's per-violation damages, so the figure is backed by statute rather than open to negotiation. A New York letter, on the other hand, typically cites the State and City Human Rights Laws alongside the ADA, reflecting the stacked claims that drive the state's volume. Florida and Texas letters more often lead with the federal ADA alone, where the leverage is the cost of defending a case rather than a damages multiplier.

For a business operating in several states, the takeaway is simple: the same set of barriers can produce very different demands depending on where the letter originates. Reading the jurisdiction tells you what you're actually facing.

For how to respond if a claim arrives, see our post on how to respond to an ADA compliance lawsuit.

How Multi-State Operators Reduce Accessibility Lawsuit Risk

Multi-state operators reduce risk by conforming to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, continuously monitoring, and covering every state in which they operate. 

The reason all three matter is that this risk doesn't sit still. If you operate online in more than one state, your exposure isn't concentrated in one jurisdiction you can monitor and forget. It exists everywhere your customers are, and a site compliant enough to avoid notice in one state can still draw a demand letter in California or New York.

That’s also why a one-time fix gives a false sense of security. The barriers that trigger lawsuits (broken forms, unlabeled buttons, keyboard traps, etc.) reappear every time your site changes. Plaintiffs file on the site as it exists the day they visit, not the day you last applied fixes. 

This is where a comprehensive platform earns its place, pairing AI-automation with expert-written Custom Fixes: the scale automation handles well, plus the complex fixes that need expert attention. AudioEye is built for exactly this kind of multi-state exposure, giving you continuous coverage across every state you operate in, backed by AudioEye Assurance when a demand letter arrives.

See exactly where your exposure is today. Run a free accessibility scan and find the barriers plaintiffs look for before they do.