Legal defence & litigation support

Counsel who can read the code

Accessibility claims are unusual: the merits turn almost entirely on technical facts. A firm that cannot inspect an accessibility tree has to hire someone who can, and then relay what they say. We put the attorney and the auditor on the same call from day one — which is why our settlement terms tend to be ones the engineering team can actually deliver, on a timeline that exists in reality.

Where we act

Demand letters

Most matters arrive as a letter with a short fuse and a settlement number. We assess the claim, verify or refute the specific barriers alleged, preserve the evidence, and respond — from a position built on a technical record rather than on hope.

Filed complaints

Defence of Title III and Title II actions in federal and state court: responsive pleadings, standing and mootness arguments where the facts support them, discovery, expert work, and negotiated resolution. Serial-filer patterns are documented and used.

Settlement and consent decrees

The money is rarely the expensive part. The remediation schedule, audit obligations, reporting duties and monitoring terms are, and they are frequently agreed by people who have no idea what they commit to. We negotiate obligations against a real remediation plan, and then deliver against them.

Expert reports and testimony

Independent technical assessment, conformance analysis and expert declarations — for our own matters, and for outside law firms who need a technical expert their opponent cannot dismantle.

Structured negotiation

Where the other side is willing, an agreed remediation programme outside litigation is usually cheaper, quieter and better for everyone. We pursue it whenever it is realistically available.

Proactive legal risk review

Before anything is filed: privileged assessment of your exposure, vendor and contract review for accessibility warranties, procurement and VPAT posture, and an accessibility statement that helps rather than admits.

Support for other law firms

We regularly work as the technical arm of outside counsel: independent audits scoped to the allegations, rebuttal analysis of a plaintiff’s expert report, deposition preparation on the technical issues, and remediation supervision during a consent decree. Engagements can be structured through your firm so the work product sits where it should.

The litigation picture

Numbers we cite across this site, and where they come from:

• More than 5,000 digital accessibility lawsuits were filed in the US in 2025; roughly 70% targeted e-commerce, and 45% of federal cases named a previously sued company.
• Around 23% of sued websites had an accessibility overlay widget installed, and monthly filings against overlay-equipped sites rose through 2025.
• Filings concentrate heavily in New York, Florida and California, with Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri and Minnesota growing quickly.
• Reported settlements commonly fall in the $5,000–$20,000 range before legal fees — but the non-monetary terms (mandated audits, remediation deadlines, third-party testing, ongoing reporting) routinely cost several times the settlement itself.

Sources: UsableNet 2026 lawsuit trend report; Accessible.org 2026 predictions and settlement analysis; DOJ Title II interim final rule, April 2026. Figures are industry estimates compiled from published trackers, not official statistics, and they change with each reporting period. We are happy to walk through the underlying reports with you.

Regulatory obligations we advise on

• ADA Title III — private businesses open to the public. No codified technical standard, continuous private litigation.
• ADA Title II — state and local government. WCAG 2.1 AA by 26 April 2027 (population 50,000+) or 26 April 2028 (smaller entities and special districts) following the DOJ’s April 2026 extension.
• Section 504 (HHS) — recipients of HHS funding, WCAG 2.1 AA by 11 May 2026.
• Section 508 — federal agencies and their suppliers; VPAT/ACR documentation in procurement.
• European Accessibility Act — in force since 28 June 2025, enforced through national law against EN 301 549, with penalties set per member state.
• AODA — Ontario.
• State law — including Unruh Act claims in California, which carry statutory damages and drive filing strategy.