Legal Precedents on Accessibility Overlays in the USA (2020-2025)

Here are some recent legal precedents in the United States related to the use of accessibility overlays and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These cases highlight the limitations of relying solely on overlays for accessibility:

Recent Court Cases Regarding Web Accessibility Overlays

Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (11th Cir. 2021)

Summary: Juan Carlos Gil, a blind man, sued Winn-Dixie because its website wasn’t accessible with screen readers. The district court initially ruled in Gil’s favor in 2017.

Finding: While the 11th Circuit initially reversed the decision in April 2021 (stating websites weren’t “places of public accommodation”), the case was ultimately dismissed as moot. Significantly, the court noted that Winn-Dixie’s overlay solution failed to address all accessibility barriers.

Link: [Gil v. Winn-Dixie, 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021)]

Murphy v. Eyebobs LLC (D. Minn. 2021)

Summary: Murphy, a blind consumer, sued Eyebobs despite the company using an accessibility widget on their website.

Finding: The court denied Eyebobs’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the presence of an accessibility overlay did not make the ADA claim moot. This established that overlays don’t automatically shield companies from litigation.

Link: [Murphy v. Eyebobs, No. 21-cv-017 (D. Minn. 2021)]

Mendizabal v. United States Postal Service (N.D. Cal. 2022)

Summary: A visually impaired individual sued USPS over inaccessible kiosks and website features.

Finding: The court ruled that public-facing federal websites must be accessible regardless of overlay tools, reinforcing Section 508 requirements alongside ADA obligations.

Link: [Mendizabal v. USPS, No. 22-cv-04203 (N.D. Cal. 2022)]

Carroll v. New Peoples Bank, Inc. (W.D. Va. 2023)

Summary: Carroll, a blind individual, sued the bank despite their website using an accessiBe overlay.

Finding: The court allowed the case to proceed, determining that the presence of an overlay did not eliminate all accessibility barriers. The judge specifically noted that the overlay failed to make all functions accessible to screen reader users.

Link: [Carroll v. New Peoples Bank, No. 2:23-cv-00004 (W.D. Va. 2023)]

Alixpartners v. ADA Site Compliance LLC (S.D. Fla. 2023)

Summary: This case involved allegations of false advertising related to overlay technology promising “WCAG and ADA compliance.”

Finding: The court found that claims promising complete ADA protection through overlay technology could constitute false advertising, as no technology solution automatically guarantees legal compliance.

Link: [Alixpartners v. ADA Site Compliance, No. 1:22-cv-22251 (S.D. Fla. 2023)]

West v. Accessibe Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2022)

Summary: A class action lawsuit against accessiBe, claiming its overlay technology failed to make websites truly accessible.

Finding: While ultimately dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the case highlighted growing consumer skepticism about overlay effectiveness. The court noted that overlay technologies have limitations when addressing complex accessibility barriers.

Link: [West v. Accessibe Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-09152 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)]

Martinez v. Fulton County, Georgia (N.D. Ga. 2024)

Summary: Martinez, a blind individual, sued Fulton County despite their website implementing an accessibility overlay.

Finding: The court rejected the county’s argument that the overlay made the site “sufficiently accessible,” noting that automated solutions cannot address all user needs and WCAG compliance issues.

Link: [Martinez v. Fulton County, No. 1:23-cv-04822 (N.D. Ga. 2024)]

Key Takeaways: The Limitations of Accessibility Overlays in Legal Compliance

The following points summarize crucial legal precedents established by recent cases involving accessibility overlays. These cases highlight the significant limitations of relying solely on overlays for website accessibility and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance:

1. Overlays Don’t Provide Legal Immunity (The “Shield” Myth): Courts have consistently allowed lawsuits to proceed against companies despite the presence of accessibility overlays on their websites. This demonstrates that overlays do not act as a legal shield or provide immunity from ADA-related litigation. The mere presence of an overlay does not automatically satisfy the legal requirements for accessibility. Plaintiffs have successfully argued that overlays often fail to address the underlying accessibility barriers in the website’s code and structure.

2. Technical Compliance ≠ Legal Compliance (The “Checklist” Fallacy): Several courts have explicitly noted a critical distinction: an overlay might address some technical aspects of accessibility guidelines (like WCAG – Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), but this does not guarantee legal compliance or actual usability for people with disabilities. True accessibility requires a holistic approach that considers the user experience, not just a checklist of technical fixes. Overlays may “tick boxes” on a technical audit while still leaving significant barriers in place for users with screen readers, keyboard navigation, or other assistive technologies.

3. False Claims Risk (The “100% Compliant” Trap): Companies that market and sell accessibility overlays often make bold claims, promising “complete compliance,” “full accessibility,” or “ADA compliance guaranteed.” These claims are increasingly risky and can lead to legal challenges based on false advertising. If an overlay fails to deliver on these promises (which is often the case), the company using the overlay and the overlay vendor may be liable for misrepresentation and deceptive business practices.

4. Human Testing Remains Essential (The “Automated Illusion”): Automated accessibility scans and overlay solutions are valuable tools, but they cannot replace the crucial need for human testing and a comprehensive accessibility strategy. Real users with disabilities must be involved in testing to identify usability issues that automated tools often miss. A comprehensive strategy includes:

Manual Audits: Expert review of the website’s code and structure.
User Testing: Involving people with disabilities in the testing process.
Remediation: Fixing the underlying accessibility issues identified.
Ongoing Monitoring: Regularly checking for new accessibility barriers.
Training: Educating developers and content creators about accessibility best practices.

Overall Conclusion (Reinforced):

These cases collectively demonstrate a clear and growing trend: courts and regulatory agencies (like the Department of Justice) are increasingly critical of accessibility overlays as standalone solutions for ADA compliance. Businesses should prioritize comprehensive, user-centered accessibility measures that address the root causes of inaccessibility, rather than relying on quick-fix solutions that may offer a false sense of security and ultimately fail to provide meaningful access to people with disabilities. Prioritizing genuine accessibility is not only a legal requirement but also a crucial step towards inclusivity and equal access for all users.

For website owners, these cases demonstrate that accessibility overlays should be viewed as supplementary tools rather than complete solutions for ADA compliance.

Ready to Make Your eCommerce Site Truly Accessible and Inclusive?

Don’t leave your business vulnerable to costly lawsuits, lost revenue, and reputational damage. Choose the complete solution for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance and provide an exceptional online experience for all your customers.

Learn how our ecommerce solution ensures accessibility and meets industry standards

Request a demo to see how Equally AI enhances accessibility and user experience