Recently, the City Journal published a critique of ADA-based lawsuits targeting inaccessible websites that paints a picture of legal chaos and unfair burdens on businesses. But beneath its surface-level concerns lies a more problematic argument: that digital inclusion is somehow optional—or worse, exploitative.
Let’s be clear: digital accessibility is not a legal loophole. It’s a civil rights issue to be taken seriously.
“The Law Predates the Internet” Isn’t a Valid Defense
The article correctly notes that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990, before the Internet transformed public life, attempting to suggest that the ADA should not be applied to the Web. But this isn’t a gotcha—it’s a testament to the foresight of the ADA’s authors. The law was intentionally written in broad terms to ensure that people with disabilities could participate fully in society, even as that society evolved.
Claiming the ADA shouldn’t apply to websites because they didn’t exist in 1990 is like saying air travel shouldn’t be regulated by modern safety laws because commercial jets didn’t exist when those laws were written. Laws adapt. That’s their job. Sometimes, when new circumstances come to light that indicate changes are necessary, laws are changed. This happens all the time and, in fact, has happened twice to the ADA.
Standards Exist—And They’re Public
The piece argues that companies face “unclear mandates” when sued for website inaccessibility. But this conveniently ignores the widely adopted Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)—a detailed framework developed by the World Wide Web Consortium and used across industries. Courts, accessibility experts, and even the Department of Justice (DOJ) have pointed to WCAG for over a decade-and-a-half. In fact, WCAG is explicitly called for within ADA Title II. The idea that there are no standards is not just misleading—it’s flat-out wrong. While ADA’s Title III doesn’t explicitly mention a specific technical standard, virtually all lawsuits, settlements, and DOJ guidance points to WCAG as the technical standard for compliance.
Participation in Public Life Now Happens Online
The article attempts the tired and fallacious argument that the ADA doesn’t apply to the Web. The ADA’s purpose is to ensure disabled Americans have equal access to public life. In 2025, that public life includes websites. Shopping, applying for jobs, attending classes, voting, scheduling medical appointments—these aren’t physical activities anymore. They’re digital. To argue that accessibility is only important for physical buildings is to ignore reality. The Web’s importance to modern society is obvious and the idea that somehow it shouldn’t be just as accessible as physical spaces is preposterous.
Weaponizing Anecdotes Doesn’t Solve Systemic Problems
The article leans heavily on the idea of “serial plaintiffs” and “cash settlements,” implying that most lawsuits are frivolous. I agree that there are a large number of lawyers who are behind a lot of the legal activity around the ADA. Some of those lawyers are involved in doing so for less than noble reasons. But those lawsuits are an indictment of something far worse: a widespread, systemic failure to build accessible digital experiences.
If numerous companies are sued for the same issue, it’s not (just) because someone is gaming the system—it’s because those companies all made the same mistake. The presence of bad actors doesn’t invalidate the need for enforcement. The harsh truth that defendants sometimes need to hear is that if they had built accessible websites in the first place, there would be no lawsuit to settle. The best defense against any lawsuit is to not violate the law. The problem with ADA lawsuits isn’t the lawyers, but the developers who are creating inaccessible websites. The WCAG standard has existed since 1999 – far longer than most professional developers have been working in this field. It isn’t new and ignorance is no excuse.
Legal Uncertainty Exists—But It’s Not an Excuse to Do Nothing
The article is correct in saying that there’s inconsistency across courts about whether websites qualify as “public accommodations” under the ADA. Some circuit courts say yes, others say no. But the lack of total judicial consensus doesn’t excuse inaction. If anything, it underscores the need for Congress to clarify and expand protections—not gut them.
Rather than rolling back rights, let’s give businesses the tools to comply. Several bipartisan proposals have sought to do exactly that: define clear standards and offer businesses a grace period to fix problems before lawsuits could proceed. Unfortunately, those bills were never passed.
Accessibility Is Good Business—Not Just Compliance
Framing accessibility as a burden misses the point. Accessible design benefits everyone. Closed captions help people watching videos in noisy environments. Keyboard navigation helps power users. Proper contrast helps mobile users in bright sunlight. Accessibility isn’t charity—it’s usability.
Businesses that ignore accessibility aren’t just breaking the law—they’re turning away potential customers. People with disabilities represent over 20% of the US population. What business is interested in not serving 20% of potential customers?
This Isn’t a Legal Nuisance. It’s a Moral Imperative.
The article’s proposed “easy solution” is for courts to rule that websites don’t fall under the ADA. But easy for whom? Not for the 54 million Americans who can’t buy groceries, make purchases, attend classes, or access public health information online. Digital accessibility is not a fringe issue. It’s the front line of equal participation in modern life.
We can have honest conversations about improving ADA enforcement. We can debate the best standards, the fairest processes, the clearest regulations, and technical standards. But one thing’s for sure: fallacy-riddled articles pretending that making the Internet accessible is an unfair burden should be given the ridicule they deserve, and the City Journal should be embarrassed.