Skip to content
wcagc
Create account
←Back to blog
ADATitle IIITitle IIWCAG

Does the ADA apply to websites? A plain answer

DOJ says the ADA covers websites, and has since 1996. Courts still split on how far. Here is what is settled, what is not, and what to do.

P

Pavel Charkasau

Does the ADA apply to websites? For state and local governments, yes, by regulation. For businesses open to the public, the Justice Department says yes and has said so since 1996: the ADA's requirements "apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web" (ADA.gov). What is not settled is how far that reaches. The statute was written in 1990 around physical places, and federal appeals courts read "place of public accommodation" differently. Some require a link between the website and a physical location. Others do not.

So the honest answer has three parts. If your site sells or books something tied to a store, office, restaurant, or hotel, it sits on the strong side of the line: that link to a physical place is exactly what the Ninth Circuit relied on in the Domino's case. If you are a government body, the ADA Title II web rule names WCAG 2.1 Level AA and gives you a date. If you run an online-only business, coverage depends on which court hears the case, and that is a weak foundation to plan around. The rest of this post walks through what is settled, what is still argued, and what to do either way.

Does the ADA apply to websites at all?

Yes, in the Justice Department's reading, and that reading is old. DOJ's 2022 guidance notes that "since 1996, the Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that the ADA applies to web content" (ADA.gov). It covers both halves of the law. Title II reaches the services, programs, and activities of state and local governments, "including those offered on the web." Title III reaches the goods and services of public accommodations, with the same phrase attached.

The guidance also lists the barriers DOJ has in mind. They are ordinary ones: poor color contrast, color used alone to convey information, images without text alternatives, videos without captions, inaccessible online forms, and navigation that only works with a mouse (ADA.gov). It is the same list a basic WCAG review starts from.

DOJ's position is not a regulation, though, and courts do not have to adopt it. That gap is where the arguments start.

What does "place of public accommodation" mean for a website?

Title III applies to "places of public accommodation," and the statute defines them by category: restaurants, hotels, stores, banks, doctors' offices, and so on. The Ninth Circuit pointed to the restaurant category, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B), when it decided the case most people cite on this question (Robles v. Domino's Pizza, 9th Cir. 2019).

Every item on that list is a physical place, which leaves courts with a choice. Some read Title III narrowly, as covering physical locations and the services connected to them. Others read it as covering the services themselves, wherever they are delivered. Holland & Knight's 2022 summary of the split puts the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits on the narrower side and the First and Seventh on the broader one (Holland & Knight).

On the narrow side, the test is usually called "nexus": is there a connection between the website and a physical place that is itself a public accommodation?

What did the Domino's case decide?

Guillermo Robles, who is blind, sued Domino's under the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act because he could not order through the website or the app with a screen reader. The Ninth Circuit ruled for him on the coverage question in January 2019. The key passage is short: customers use the website and app "to locate a nearby Domino's restaurant and order pizzas for at-home delivery or in-store pickup," and "this nexus between Domino's website and app and physical restaurants... is critical to our analysis" (9th Cir.).

Domino's asked the Supreme Court to take the case. It declined on October 7, 2019 (Supreme Court docket 18-1539). A denial is not a ruling on the merits, but it left the Ninth Circuit's decision standing in the circuit that covers California.

The part people skip is what the court said about WCAG. Domino's argued that holding it to WCAG 2.0 violated due process, because no rule required WCAG. The court disagreed with the framing: Robles was not suing for failing WCAG, he was suing under the ADA itself, and the district court "can order compliance with WCAG 2.0 as an equitable remedy if, after discovery, the website and app fail to satisfy the ADA" (9th Cir.). That is the pattern in one sentence. The ADA creates the duty, and WCAG shows up as the measuring stick for the fix.

What about the Winn-Dixie ruling that said websites are not covered?

It no longer counts. In April 2021 an Eleventh Circuit panel held, in Gil v. Winn-Dixie, that "public accommodation" covers only physical places, which would have taken most website claims out of Title III in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. In December 2021 the same court vacated that opinion as moot, because the injunction at issue had already expired while the appeal was pending (Holland & Knight).

A vacated opinion is not precedent, so the Eleventh Circuit question is open again.

Does the ADA apply to online-only businesses?

This is the unsettled part, and I will not pretend otherwise. Under a nexus test, a business with no physical location open to the public has a real argument that Title III does not reach its website, because there is no physical place to connect to. Under the broader reading, the question is whether you offer goods or services to the public at all, and an online store plainly does.

Which reading applies depends on where you are sued, and you do not pick that. Plaintiffs also often pair the federal claim with a state one; Robles brought his case under California's Unruh Act as well as the ADA (9th Cir.). So "we have no storefront" is a litigation argument, not a compliance plan. Treat it as one, and if you are relying on it, get a lawyer's view for your specific situation rather than mine.

Did DOJ ever write a website rule for private businesses?

It started one and stopped. DOJ opened rulemaking on the accessibility of web information and services of public accommodations (RIN 1190-AA61) and formally withdrew it on December 26, 2017, along with the parallel state and local government rulemaking (Federal Register, 82 FR 60932).

When senators then asked for clarity, DOJ's October 2018 reply said two things that still describe the private-sector position. Its interpretation that the ADA applies to public accommodations' websites dates back "over 20 years." And without specific technical requirements, businesses "have flexibility in how to comply," so "noncompliance with a specific voluntary technical standard for website accessibility does not necessarily indicate noncompliance with the ADA" (DOJ letter to Sen. Grassley, Oct. 11, 2018).

Read carefully, that flexibility cuts both ways. Missing a WCAG criterion is not automatically a violation. Meeting most of WCAG also does not prove you are fine, if a blind customer still cannot finish checkout.

Governments got a real rule later. The 2024 Title II rule requires WCAG 2.1 Level AA for state and local government web content and mobile apps, with compliance dates of April 26, 2027 for entities serving 50,000 people or more and April 26, 2028 for smaller entities and special districts, after DOJ extended the original dates in April 2026 (ADA.gov). The split between the two regimes is covered in ADA Title II vs Title III.

If the ADA applies, what standard will my website be measured against?

In practice, WCAG. DOJ's guidance names WCAG and the Section 508 standards as "helpful guidance" (ADA.gov), Title II names WCAG 2.1 AA outright, and Robles shows how a court reaches for WCAG when it has to order a remedy. Which version and level is its own question, answered in Does the ADA require WCAG, and which level?. The short answer is to build toward WCAG 2.2 Level AA, because content that conforms to 2.2 also conforms to 2.1 and 2.0 (W3C).

Here is my view, stated plainly. I find the "is a website a place" debate interesting and almost useless for planning. Which circuit you sit in should not decide what you fix. What broke for a real user should: a checkout <button> with no accessible name, or a date picker that traps keyboard focus so Tab never leaves it. Those are fixable this quarter, whatever the courts eventually say.

How do I check whether my site has the barriers DOJ describes?

Start with an automated scan of the pages where people complete tasks: search, product, cart, checkout, login, contact. A scan finds the machine-detectable failures quickly, and it points at the exact element. Then check the color pairs it flags with the contrast checker and work through the rest with the WCAG checklist.

Know the limit. Automated testing catches roughly 30 to 57% of accessibility issues depending on the study; Deque's analysis of its own rule set put the figure at 57% (Deque). Our scanner will not tell you whether your error messages make sense read aloud, or whether a custom menu behaves the way a keyboard user expects. That part needs a person, ideally one who uses a screen reader daily. Be wary of anyone selling a shortcut: the FTC ordered accessiBe to pay $1 million in 2025 over claims that its AI tool could make any website compliant with WCAG (FTC).

FAQ

Does the ADA apply to websites of private businesses?

The Justice Department says yes: since 1996 it has held that Title III covers the goods and services public accommodations offer, including those offered on the web (ADA.gov). Courts agree when the site is connected to a physical location, as the Ninth Circuit held in Robles v. Domino's in 2019. Coverage of online-only businesses still varies by court.

Is there an ADA regulation that sets a website standard for businesses?

No. DOJ withdrew its proposed rulemaking for public accommodations' websites on December 26, 2017 (Federal Register), and its guidance says businesses have flexibility in how they comply. Only state and local governments have a rule naming a standard: WCAG 2.1 Level AA under Title II.

Does the ADA apply to a business that only sells online?

It depends on the court. Circuits that require a nexus to a physical place give online-only businesses a stronger argument against coverage, and circuits that read Title III more broadly do not (Holland & Knight). It is an argument to make in court, not a reason to skip accessibility work.

Did the Supreme Court decide whether the ADA covers websites?

No. The Supreme Court declined to hear Domino's appeal on October 7, 2019, which left the Ninth Circuit's ruling in place without deciding the question nationally (Supreme Court docket 18-1539).

Does the ADA apply to mobile apps too?

Yes, on the same reasoning. The Ninth Circuit's Robles decision covered both Domino's website and its app (9th Cir.), and the Title II rule covers state and local government mobile apps as well as web content (ADA.gov).

See what a screen reader user would hit on your site

Whether a court would call your site covered is a question for a lawyer. Whether a blind customer can finish your checkout is a question you can answer today. Run a free accessibility scan on your highest-traffic task pages and you get the WCAG failures with the selector for each one, so your team can fix the blockers first and plan a human review for the rest.

Written by Pavel Charkasau, founder of wcagc.com. I read the opinions and the agency letters themselves, so this post quotes what they say rather than what is said about them. It is not legal advice.

Last updated: October 7, 2026

Sources