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: an automotive parts retailer

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed December 14, 2020

Plaintiff's Firm: ACACIA BARROS, P.A.

WCAG 2.1 AScreen Reader IncompatibilityMissing Accessible NamesPoor ContrastKeyboard Focus Failure

Case Summary

Plaintiff Aishia Petersen, represented by Acacia Barros, P.A., has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, on December 14, 2020. The complaint targets an automotive parts mobile application for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The complaint alleges that the mobile app fails to meet WCAG 2.1 A level accessibility, presenting numerous barriers for visually impaired users. Specific issues cited include nonsensical submenu descriptions, unannounced product prices, lack of descriptions for multiple items, missing zoom functionality, small touch targets, poor contrast, and an unlabeled 'basket root' icon. Furthermore, the plaintiff encountered issues where messages for 'Add to bag' and form submission errors were not audibly announced or given keyboard focus, and quantity adjustment buttons lacked audio feedback. Mobile app buttons also lacked proper roles and VoiceOver accessibility.

This lawsuit highlights the critical importance of digital accessibility for businesses operating mobile applications that serve as public accommodations. Entities offering goods and services through such platforms face significant legal risk under the ADA if their digital interfaces are not fully accessible to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities, requiring compliance with standards like WCAG 2.1 A.

Case Q&A

What specific WCAG violations is this mobile automotive parts retailer accused of?

The mobile automotive parts retailer is accused of numerous WCAG 2.1 A level violations. These include nonsensical submenu descriptions, unannounced product prices, missing item descriptions, lack of zoom capability, small touch targets, poor contrast, and an unlabeled shopping cart icon. Additionally, error messages and 'add to bag' confirmations lack auditory announcements or keyboard focus, and interactive elements like quantity adjustment buttons are inaccessible to screen readers.

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

The lawsuit was filed by Aishia Petersen, represented by the law firm Acacia Barros, P.

What legal risk does this create?

This case signifies a legal risk for any business that operates a customer-facing mobile application, especially those linked to physical places of public accommodation. Failure to ensure full digital accessibility for users with disabilities, particularly regarding screen reader compatibility and adherence to WCAG 2.1 A standards, can lead to ADA Title III lawsuits and court-ordered injunctive relief.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: an automotive parts retai.... 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