Accessible Design in 2026.

The complaint is fifteen pages long. It alleges that your e-commerce website cannot be fully operated by a user who relies on keyboard navigation. It alleges that your product images lack alternative text descriptions. It alleges that your color contrast ratios fall below the WCAG 2.1 AA threshold. It seeks statutory damages, attorneys fees, and injunctive relief requiring remediation.

This complaint is currently being drafted by a plaintiffs firm that scans the internet for inaccessible websites the same way ambulance-chasing attorneys once scanned police reports. The volume of these filings has increased approximately 40 percent annually for the past three years.

If you believe your website is immune because you are not a "public accommodation" under the ADA, you are operating on legal advice from 2012. The courts have spoken. The Department of Justice has declined to clarify. The lawsuits continue.

What Courts Are Actually Enforcing in 2026

1. Keyboard Navigation

The single most common failure cited in federal complaints is the inability to navigate the website using only the Tab, Enter, and Arrow keys. This is not a subtle or debatable failure. If a user cannot tab through your navigation menu, cannot activate dropdowns with the Enter key, and cannot determine which element is currently focused, your website is inaccessible.

The Remediation: Every interactive element must receive focus. Focus indicators must be visible (WCAG requires a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between focused and unfocused states). Custom dropdowns, modals, and carousels must implement keyboard handlers. This is not optional. This is the baseline.

2. Alternative Text for Images

Product images, informational graphics, and functional icons must have text alternatives. Decorative images must be hidden from assistive technology. These requirements have existed since WCAG 1.0 in 1999.

The Remediation: Audit your image library. Implement automated checking in your CMS. Train content creators on the distinction between informative and decorative images. If a product image lacks alt text and the product description does not adequately describe the visual appearance, you are exposing yourself to liability.

3. Color Contrast

Text must have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against its background. Large text (18pt or 14pt bold) requires 3:1. This is measurable. This is objective. This is frequently violated, particularly in footer areas, placeholder text, and UI elements with subtle background colors.

The Remediation: Use contrast checking tools during design and development. Do not rely on designers visual judgment. Do not assume that light gray text on a white background is readable. It is not readable. It is a lawsuit waiting to be filed.

4. Form Label Association

Form inputs must be programmatically associated with their labels. Placeholder text is not a substitute for a label. When a user enters a form field and the placeholder text disappears, a screen reader user may no longer know what information is being requested.

The Remediation: Every form input must have an associated <label> element with a for attribute matching the inputs id. If custom styling prevents visible labels, use aria-label or aria-labelledby. Test with a screen reader. Discover the experience your users are actually having.

The Litigation Landscape

1. Demand Letters

Many accessibility lawsuits begin as demand letters. A plaintiffs firm contacts your legal department, identifies specific WCAG failures, and offers to settle for a sum substantially less than the cost of litigation.

These letters are not frivolous, even if you believe them to be opportunistic. The failures they identify are real. The cost of defending against a federal lawsuit, even a weak one, is substantial. The economics of settlement are often compelling.

2. The DOJ Position

The Department of Justice has repeatedly declined to issue regulations specifying technical standards for website accessibility under the ADA. This regulatory vacuum has been filled by the courts, which have increasingly adopted WCAG 2.1 AA as the de facto standard.

The lack of formal regulations is not a defense. Courts have consistently held that the ADA applies to websites and that compliance can be measured against established industry guidelines.

3. Serial Plaintiffs

A small number of plaintiffs firms file the vast majority of accessibility lawsuits. They use automated scanning tools to identify potential defendants, send demand letters en masse, and settle with those who cannot afford litigation.

This is not an argument against accessibility. It is an observation about the enforcement mechanism. The system is flawed, but it is the system we have. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

The Remediation Strategy

1. Conduct a Proper Audit

Automated testing tools detect approximately 30 percent of WCAG failures. They cannot evaluate alternative text quality, keyboard navigation logic, or screen reader announcement order. You need manual testing by qualified accessibility specialists.

This is an expense. It is a smaller expense than a federal lawsuit.

2. Create a Remediation Plan

Prioritize high-impact, low-effort fixes. Color contrast violations are often trivial to correct. Keyboard navigation failures may require more substantial development work but affect the largest number of users.

Document your remediation plan. If litigation occurs, your documented good-faith efforts to achieve compliance will be relevant to both liability and damages.

3. Implement an Ongoing Compliance Program

Accessibility is not a project with an end date. Your developers will introduce new inaccessible code. Your content creators will upload images without alt text. Your marketing team will deploy a third-party widget that fails keyboard navigation requirements.

Establish processes to prevent regression. Include accessibility requirements in your design system. Test for accessibility in your CI/CD pipeline. Train your staff.

4. Consider an Overlay at Your Own Risk

Accessibility overlays—JavaScript widgets that claim to automatically remediate accessibility issues—have proliferated in response to litigation pressure. These products are controversial and, in the opinion of most accessibility professionals, ineffective.

Some courts have begun to scrutinize overlays. Defendants who rely solely on overlay technology may find that their compliance defense is weaker than that of defendants who have made genuine, structural remediations.

The Honest Assessment

Your website is likely inaccessible in ways that would support a colorable legal claim. This is not because you are negligent. It is because accessibility has historically been treated as a niche concern rather than a core requirement.

That historical treatment is no longer viable. The legal risk has materialized. The user expectations have shifted. The technical solutions are mature and documented.

You have three options. You can remediate proactively. You can remediate reactively after receiving a demand letter. Or you can litigate and almost certainly lose while paying substantially more in legal fees than the remediation would have cost.

The rational choice is clear. The question is whether your organization will make it.