Received a Demand Letter? Get Immediate Defense Help →

Informational only — not legal advice. Data from public PACER/CourtListener records. Full disclaimer →

ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: a restaurant franchisor

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed March 24, 2020

Plaintiff's Firm: J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

WCAG 2.1 AAWCAG 1.3.1 Info and RelationshipsWCAG 2.1.1 KeyboardWCAG 2.4.3 Focus OrderWCAG 4.1.3 Status Messages

Case Summary

Windy Lucius has filed an ADA Title III lawsuit against a company operating a mobile ordering app for restaurants in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, on March 24, 2020.

The complaint specifically alleges numerous WCAG 2.1 A and AA violations. These include issues with screen reader compatibility where payment details and status messages are not announced, and required sections are not communicated to VoiceOver users. Further violations cite WCAG 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) for unannounced required options, WCAG 1.3.2 (Meaningful Sequence) for confusing checkout focus, and WCAG 1.3.3 (Sensory Characteristics) for uncommunicated visual selections. Additionally, the app reportedly fails WCAG 2.1.1 (Keyboard) due to unfocusable elements on payment pages, WCAG 2.1.2 (No Keyboard Trap) where VoiceOver gets stuck in credit card entry, WCAG 2.4.3 (Focus Order) for illogical navigation, and WCAG 4.1.3 (Status Messages) for unannounced cart updates.

This lawsuit highlights the significant legal risks faced by businesses offering mobile applications to the public, particularly those integrated with physical places of public accommodation. Failure to ensure full accessibility for visually impaired users via screen reader software, in compliance with WCAG standards, can lead to ADA Title III litigation and demands for injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Case Q&A

What specific WCAG violations is this mobile ordering app accused of?

The mobile ordering app is accused of WCAG 2.1 A and AA violations including unannounced payment details and status messages, lack of communication for required sections, issues with information and relationships (1.3.1), meaningful sequence (1.3.2), sensory characteristics (1.3.3), keyboard accessibility (2.1.1), keyboard traps (2.1.2), illogical focus order (2.4.3), and unannounced status messages (4.1.3).

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

The lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Windy Lucius, represented by the law firm J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC.

What legal risk does this create?

This case underscores the legal risk for businesses offering mobile applications that do not comply with ADA Title III and WCAG standards, potentially leading to lawsuits seeking injunctive relief and attorney's fees for accessibility failures impacting visually impaired users.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: a restaurant franchisor. Ask me about the plaintiff's law firm, the specific WCAG violations at risk, or how to protect your business. I cite real lawsuit patterns — not generic advice.

Not legal advice — informational intelligence only.

TDARI is not a law firm. Responses are AI-generated intelligence, not legal advice. Disclaimer