Of the ADA website defenses available, the best way to dismiss an ADA website lawsuit is by showing the plaintiff lacks standing.
In this guide, we’ll explain the requirements to establish standing and then explain how most website accessibility lawsuits alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are extremely susceptible to a motion to dismiss for a lack of standing.
Table of Contents
What is Standing?
Here’s the revised sentence without the word “ensure”:
“Standing is the right to bring an action in court. Legal standing is a fundamental requirement in any lawsuit, meaning that only those with a legitimate interest in the case can bring it before a judge.”
What are the Requirements to Establish Standing?
For a plaintiff to bring a case in federal court, they must have standing, which means they must demonstrate all three of the following items:
- Have suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent.
- The injury must be directly caused by the defendant’s actions.
- The court must be able to provide a remedy that addresses the injury.
These three core standing requirements—injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability—are consistent across federal courts.
However, what can vary by court is how these requirements are interpreted and proven, particularly in ADA website cases. This is an important note so keep in mind that not all courts agree on what is necessary to meet each requirement.
Let’s now explain what each of these criteria mean.
Injury-in-Fact
To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he suffered an injury-in-fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Here are the keys to establishing injury-in-fact.
- The injury must be specific to the plaintiff and not hypothetical or generalized.
- Threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury-in-fact and allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.
- A plaintiff pursuing injunctive relief may not rely solely on past injury but must establish that he is likely to be harmed again in the future in a similar way. This demonstrates that the court’s intervention is necessary to prevent further harm, not merely to address a past grievance.
- Material risk of future harm that is sufficiently imminent and substantial must be shown.
Causation
Second, the plaintiff must show that the injury is traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant.
In other words, the plaintiff must show that the claimed injury was caused by the defendant.
Redressability
Third, the plaintiff must show that the court can redress the alleged injury if it grants the plaintiff’s requested relief.
Stated another way, the plaintiff must show that the court can remedy the plaintiff’s injury.
Standing in ADA Website Lawsuits
Now let’s apply the standing requirements to the overwhelming majority of ADA website lawsuits. In these cases, the best strategy for defendants often centers on challenging the plaintiff’s claim of injury-in-fact.
Challenging Whether The Plaintiff Has Been Injured
Not Injured
First, the plaintiff has to show that they have indeed suffered a concrete and particularized injury. This can’t be hypothetical or generalized.
When it comes to establishing injury in website accessibility cases, a plaintiff cannot merely have been browsing around the website without having a specific product they intended to purchase.
Additionally, using the illustration of a case involving a Shopify store website, the plaintiff may claim they could not complete checkout because of one or more accessibility issues – but could they really not checkout?
In other words, were they actually injured by the alleged technical issues or are they just claiming technical accessibility issues existed.
Here we’re going to drill down into the actual essence of the accessibility issue(s) claimed: did these issues actually prevent access?
Future Harm
Second, the plaintiff must establish that they are likely to be harmed again in the future in a similar way. This is why you’ll see so many complaints state that the plaintiff intends to go back to the website and make a purchase once the alleged accessibility issues are fixed.
This is a real weak spot for plaintiffs for multiple reasons. One reason is their own serial litigation. If the plaintiff’s law firm files hundreds of similar complaints a year and the plaintiff partakes in dozens or hundreds of those complaints, the question becomes, did you only visit the website to file a lawsuit?
Another possible reason is the website analytics may show that the plaintiff has never visited the website previously.
Defendants can also inquire as to whether the defendant has ever shown interest in the product, service, or business ever before. Additionally, defendants can question what stoked their interest this time.
Summary
To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three things:
- injury
- causation
- redressability
Plaintiffs in ADA website cases are especially susceptible to challenges regarding their injury.
Of course, standing is just one of many potential defenses to website owners.
We’ve previous covered how a defendants might potentially have success with a motion to dismiss based on mootness. But mooting a case will usually involve more work and may be more difficult.
Currently, we’re seeing defendants have more and more success getting ADA website cases dismissed based on a lack of standing.
If your defense attorney needs expert help with the technical accessibility aspects of the case, we can provide both consultation and documentation.
