Can You Get an ADA Website Lawsuit Dismissed? What Some New York Judges Are Doing (and Why You Should Still Remediate)

Featuring insight from Michael Samuel, The Samuel Law Firm [https://thesamuellawfirm.com/practice-areas/ada-website-lawsuit-defense-new-york/]

If your business has been served with a web accessibility lawsuit in New York, one of the first questions you will probably ask your attorney is whether the case can simply be thrown out.

It’s a question defense attorneys in New York hear constantly. 

Michael Samuel of The Samuel Law Firm, who has practiced law since 1993 and spent the last six of them defending businesses in website accessibility cases, says he receives as many as 25 new inquiries in a month. Most involve lawsuits that have already been filed, rather than demand letters.

The honest answer is: sometimes. 

In 2024, several judges in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dismissed web accessibility suits on two different grounds. But those rulings don’t bind other judges, and the law in New York remains unsettled. And, as Michael points out, even a case you could win may cost more to fight than to resolve.

This article explains both dismissal arguments in plain language, where they fall short, and what a defense attorney actually recommends.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Speak with a qualified ADA defense attorney licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Why the Southern District of New York Matters

New York is consistently one of the top states for ADA website lawsuits, and the SDNY, which covers Manhattan, the Bronx, and several counties north of New York City, sees a large share of them. 

Part of the reason is that New York State and New York City have their own laws requiring equal access to places of public accommodation, which plaintiffs often add alongside the federal ADA claim. 

The bigger reason the SDNY is worth watching is that the key legal questions haven’t been settled. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the appeals court whose decisions bind federal courts in New York, has not squarely decided whether a business that operates only online is covered by Title III of the ADA. 

Without that guidance, individual SDNY judges have reached different conclusions, and one judge’s ruling doesn’t bind the others. That’s why the cases below are best understood as what some judges have done, not as the law in New York.

Dismissal argument #1: Your business only exists online

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination in “places of public accommodation.” The statute lists examples such as hotels, restaurants, stores, and doctors’ offices. The question is whether a business that has no physical location open to the public, and sells only through its website, counts as a “place” at all.

Courts across the country have split on this. Some federal appeals courts require a connection between the website and a physical location; others don’t. In 2024, two SDNY judges sided with the physical-location view.

Mejia v. High Brew Coffee (September 2024)

In Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, decided on September 30, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed an ADA claim against a company that sold coffee only through its website. She held that a stand-alone website is not a place of public accommodation under Title III, reasoning that the statute’s list of examples almost entirely describes physical places.

Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads (October 2024)

A few weeks later, on October 16, 2024, Judge Gregory Woods reached the same result in Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, a case against an online-only clothing retailer. Relying in part on Mejia, he concluded that a website with no connection to a physical place is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III’s plain text, and granted the retailer’s motion to dismiss.

One detail matters here: Judge Woods found that the plaintiff did have standing to sue. The case was dismissed only because the business had no physical location, which is a separate question from the standing argument covered below.

The limits of this argument

Before an online-only business takes much comfort from these rulings, a few cautions:

• Other judges disagree. Many other SDNY judges have held that website-only businesses are covered by the ADA. Which judge your case is assigned to can matter.
• It only helps truly online-only businesses. If you have a store, office, showroom, or other physical location open to the public, this argument is much harder to make.
• It doesn’t cover every claim. Plaintiffs often bring New York State and City claims alongside the ADA claim, and a dismissal of the federal claim doesn’t necessarily end the matter. 

Dismissal argument #2: The plaintiff hasn’t shown a real injury

To sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show “standing,” which includes a concrete, real injury. In ADA website cases, that usually means showing they genuinely tried to use the site, ran into barriers, and plan to return.

Many website suits are brought by “testers”: people who visit websites to check their accessibility and file suits when they find barriers. Testers can have standing, but courts in New York have increasingly required them to back up their claims with specific facts rather than generic language. 

The Second Circuit raised that bar in 2022 in Calcano v. Swarovski North America, which affirmed the dismissal of several near-identical ADA suits. 

Martin v. Second Story Promotions (February 2024)

On February 26, 2024, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed a suit brought by two tester plaintiffs against an online promotional products retailer in Martin v. Second Story Promotions. The court found that the complaint didn’t explain how the plaintiffs found the website, which products they were interested in, or why they would choose this retailer over others. Each plaintiff described only one visit.

The judge also looked at the wider pattern. On the same day this complaint was filed, one of the plaintiffs, with the same lawyers, filed nine other website accessibility suits in the same court, using largely identical language. The court treated those copycat complaints as further evidence that the claimed injury wasn’t plausible.

Unusually, the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs couldn’t simply fix their complaint and refile it in that court. The judge noted that the plaintiffs had been given a chance to amend their complaint and had declined.

The limits of this argument

A standing challenge depends entirely on what the specific complaint says. A plaintiff who includes concrete details, such as a particular product they tried to buy and why they want it from your site, may well clear the bar. Sookul is an example: the same court found that a serial plaintiff had adequately shown standing there.

Why dismissal isn’t the whole strategy

Even when a dismissal argument looks promising, it isn’t free. Motions take time and legal fees, and there’s no guarantee the judge assigned to your case will agree. That’s why many defense attorneys weigh the cost of fighting against the cost of resolving the case.

Michael has won these motions himself. His firm’s results page lists four dismissals of ADA website lawsuits in New York, most recently Carrico v. Homelement, LLC, decided in October 2026 by the New York State Supreme Court in New York County, which is a state trial court rather than the state’s highest court. 

Even so, he often advises clients to settle early rather than litigate. In his experience, most settlements include two parts: a commitment to fix the website, and a payment.

He also pushes clients to start fixing their websites right away, whatever happens with the lawsuit. He has represented businesses that were sued more than once, and an inaccessible site remains a target for the next plaintiff even after the first case ends.

“The sooner they start on remediation, the better.” — Michael Samuel, The Samuel Law Firm

For businesses that haven’t been sued yet, his advice is even simpler:

“If they could take care of the website before it becomes a problem, that’s just going to be so much cheaper.” — Michael Samuel, The Samuel Law Firm

If you’ve been sued in New York: what to do first

1. Don’t miss the deadline. In federal court, you typically have 21 days after being served to respond. Missing it can lead to a default judgment.
2. Talk to an ADA defense attorney early. Ask directly whether either dismissal argument fits your facts. Is your business genuinely online-only? Does the complaint use generic, copy-and-paste allegations? Our directory of ADA defense attorneys is a good place to start.
3. Start remediation in parallel. Fixing the barriers lowers your risk of the next lawsuit, whatever happens with this one.
4. Document everything. Keep a record of the issues you found, what you fixed, and when. A clear record helps your attorney and shows good faith.

Automated scanning can help you see where your site stands and track progress as you fix issues, but it doesn’t replace legal advice or a full manual review.

If you’ve received a demand letter rather than a lawsuit, see our guide to responding to ADA demand letters. For how New York compares with other states, see our breakdown of ADA website lawsuits by state.

Legal disclaimer: The information in this article was compiled through independent research and an interview with a practicing attorney. It does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction about any accessibility demand letter or lawsuit.

FAQs