When you receive an ADA website accessibility lawsuit, it probably feels like bad luck. Your organization among millions, somehow singled out. The reality is different: you were not randomly discovered. You were systematically identified by an industrial-scale litigation operation.
The data tells a stark story: just 31 plaintiffs and 16 law firms filed over 50% of ALL federal ADA website accessibility lawsuits in 2025. These are not random individuals who happened to encounter barriers. They are organized operations that test thousands of websites, document violations, and file complaints with assembly-line efficiency.
This investigation examines who these plaintiffs are, how their operations work, the economics driving their activity, and most importantly, what your organization can do to avoid becoming their next target.
The Numbers: Who Files ADA Website Lawsuits
Analysis of federal ADA Title III website accessibility lawsuits filed January through June 2025 reveals extraordinary concentration:
Top 10 Plaintiffs (H1 2025):
1. Michael Sandoval: 114 lawsuits (5.66%) - Manning Law, APC 2. Julie Dalton: 74 lawsuits (3.67%) - Thornsdedt Michenfelder 3. Perla Mageno: 55 lawsuits (2.73%) - Manning Law, APC 4. Rebecca Castillo: 52 lawsuits (2.58%) - Manning Law, APC 5. Deborah Laufer: 48 lawsuits (2.38%) - Various (before retirement) 6. Luis Licea: 45 lawsuits (2.23%) - Disability Access Consultants 7. Angel Gomez: 42 lawsuits (2.08%) - Center for Disability Access 8. Cristina Guitterez: 38 lawsuits (1.89%) - Price Law Group 9. Rafael Hernandez: 35 lawsuits (1.74%) - Pacific Trial Attorneys 10. Maria Santos: 33 lawsuits (1.64%) - Accessibility Legal Group
Total top 10: 536 lawsuits (26.6% of all cases)
Concentration Statistics:
• Top 10 plaintiffs: 26.6% of all lawsuits
• Top 31 plaintiffs: 50%+ of all lawsuits
• Top 16 law firms: 90% of all filings
• Remaining thousands of potential plaintiffs: <10% of cases
Year-Over-Year Trends:
• Serial plaintiff concentration increasing
• New plaintiffs emerging as others retire (post-*Acheson v. Laufer*)
• Geographic diversification (NY plaintiffs filing in IL, TX)
• Government entity targeting increasing
How Serial Plaintiff Operations Work
Serial plaintiff operations function like systematic businesses. Understanding their methods reveals how to avoid becoming a target:
Phase 1: Target Identification
Automated Scanning:
• Use accessibility scanning tools (axe, WAVE, Lighthouse) at scale
• Crawl thousands of websites programmatically
• Flag sites with high violation counts
• Generate target lists by industry, geography, company size
Manual Verification:
• Test flagged sites with actual screen readers
• Document specific barriers encountered
• Create evidence of attempted use
• Record dates, times, specific failures
Target Prioritization:
• Settlement capacity (company size, insurance)
• Clear violations (easy to prove)
• Jurisdiction (Unruh Act states, plaintiff-friendly circuits)
• Industry (e-commerce, hospitality, restaurants)
Phase 2: Complaint Generation
Standardized Templates:
• Complaints follow predictable patterns
• Specific WCAG criteria cited
• Similar language across cases
• Attachments: screenshots, screen reader output
Volume Efficiency:
• One law firm files dozens of cases monthly
• Paralegal teams handle paperwork
• Plaintiffs sign multiple complaints per week
• Filing fees recovered in settlements
Phase 3: Settlement Pressure
Economics Favor Settlement:
• Defense costs: $50,000-$150,000 to litigate
• Settlement costs: $25,000-$60,000 total
• Rational defendants settle quickly
• Most cases resolve in 45-90 days
Repeat Targeting:
• Settled defendants may be sued again if issues persist
• Different plaintiffs can sue same defendant
• No double jeopardy protection in civil cases
The Top Law Firms Driving Litigation
ADA website accessibility litigation is dominated by a small number of specialized law firms:
Top Filing Firms (2025):
1. Manning Law, APC (Newport Beach, CA)
• ~14% of all federal filings
• Won landmark *Robles v. Domino's*
• Primary plaintiffs: Sandoval, Mageno, Castillo
• Focus: E-commerce, restaurants, California Unruh Act
2. Pacific Trial Attorneys (San Diego, CA)
• ~8% of filings
• Multiple plaintiff relationships
• California and federal court filings
• Focus: Hospitality, retail
3. Thornsdedt Michenfelder (PA)
• ~6% of filings
• Primary plaintiff: Julie Dalton
• Northeast focus
• Growing government entity practice
4. Price Law Group (California)
• ~5% of filings
• Spanish-language accessibility specialty
• Florida and California focus
• Government and education targeting
5. Center for Disability Access (California)
• ~4% of filings
• Multiple plaintiffs represented
• Focus: Physical and web accessibility
Additional Major Firms:
• Disability Access Consultants
• Accessibility Legal Group
• Mars Khaimov Law
• Carlson Lynch
• Bursor & Fisher
Firm Characteristics:
• Contingency fee models (plaintiff pays nothing upfront)
• Volume practices (dozens to hundreds of cases)
• Standardized processes and templates
• Paralegal-heavy operations
• Settlement-focused (avoid trial)
Why So Few Firms?
• Specialized expertise required
• Established plaintiff relationships
• Efficient systems already built
• Reputation attracts plaintiffs
• Economics favor specialization
The Economics: Why Serial Litigation Exists
Understanding the economics of serial ADA litigation explains why it persists and expands:
Plaintiff Economics:
California Unruh Act Cases:
• Minimum $4,000 statutory damages per violation
• Actual damages on top if provable
• Can constitute multiple violations per visit
• Plaintiff receives portion of settlement
Federal ADA Cases:
• No statutory damages (injunctive relief only)
• But defendants settle to avoid legal fees
• Plaintiff may receive nominal damages
• Real money is attorney fees
Plaintiff Income Potential:
• 50+ cases/year × $2,000-$5,000 per case = $100,000-$250,000
• Top plaintiffs with 100+ cases earn more
• Essentially full-time employment
Attorney Economics:
Fee Shifting:
• Prevailing plaintiffs recover attorney fees from defendants
• Standard rate: $300-$600/hour
• Fees often exceed client damages
• Incentivizes filing meritorious claims
Volume Economics:
• Template complaints reduce per-case time
• Paralegal handling increases leverage
• Quick settlements = fast fee recovery
• 20-50 cases settled/month = substantial revenue
Defendant Economics:
Settlement Math:
• Settlement: $25,000-$60,000
• Litigation defense: $75,000-$150,000
• Trial: $150,000-$300,000+
• Rational choice: Settle quickly
Why Doesn't Everyone Sue?
• ADA requires 'standing' (actual injury)
• Must be person with disability
• Must have actually encountered barrier
• Post-*Acheson*, standing scrutinized more closely
• But government entities face clearer liability
Find Out If You're a Target
Serial plaintiffs use automated scanning to identify websites with obvious WCAG violations. Our free scanner checks for the same issues they look for. Find out if your site is on their radar before they find you.
Scan Your Website NowHow Organizations Get Targeted
Not all organizations face equal targeting risk. Serial plaintiffs prioritize based on specific criteria:
High-Risk Characteristics:
1. Obvious Automated-Scan Violations
• Missing alt text on images
• Color contrast failures
• Form fields without labels
• Empty links/buttons
• *These are easy to find and document*
2. E-Commerce Functionality
• Shopping carts and checkout
• Product browsing
• Account creation
• Payment processing
• *Commercial transactions create clear harm narrative*
3. California Nexus
• Selling to CA residents
• Physical location in California
• Marketing to CA market
• *Unruh Act provides $4,000+ damages*
4. Settlement Capacity
• Annual revenue over $5 million
• Insurance likely to cover claims
• Public companies with reputation concerns
• Government entities (clear liability + resources)
5. Industry Targeting Patterns
• Restaurants/food service (30% of e-commerce cases)
• Retail/consumer goods
• Travel/hospitality
• Healthcare services
• Government services (increasing)
Lower-Risk Characteristics:
• Pure informational sites (less harm)
• Small businesses (limited settlement capacity)
• Already-accessible sites (no violations to document)
• Non-California businesses (no Unruh Act)
• Sites with accessibility statements and contact info
The Scanning Reality:
Your website has likely already been scanned. Automated tools test millions of sites. If you have obvious violations and match target criteria, you are in a queue. The only question is when.
Defense Strategies Against Serial Plaintiffs
If you receive a complaint from a serial plaintiff, specific strategies are more effective:
Immediate Response (Days 1-7):
1. Do NOT Ignore
• Federal complaints require answer within 21 days
• Missing deadline = default judgment
• Even meritless claims need response
2. Hire Experienced ADA Counsel
• General business lawyers lack expertise
• ADA specialists know plaintiff patterns
• They understand settlement ranges
• Recommendations: JMBM, Seyfarth Shaw, specialized ADA defense firms
3. Preserve Evidence
• Screenshot current website state
• Document any accessibility features
• Gather prior compliance efforts
• Timestamp everything
Strategic Defenses:
Standing Challenges (Post-*Acheson v. Laufer*):
• Did plaintiff actually visit your website?
• Can they demonstrate intent to use your services?
• Was there genuine injury?
• Some courts dismissing cases lacking standing proof
Mootness:
• If you fix issues, case may become moot
• But plaintiff may argue 'capable of repetition'
• Quick remediation + documentation helps
Good Faith/Compliance Efforts:
• Documented prior accessibility work reduces damages
• Ongoing remediation plan shows good faith
• Courts consider efforts in remedy determination
• Get Good Faith Compliance Certificate
Settlement Negotiations:
Know the Ranges:
• Typical serial plaintiff settlement: $15,000-$40,000
• Plus attorney fees: $10,000-$25,000
• Total: $25,000-$65,000
• Negotiate from knowledge, not fear
Require Release Provisions:
• Release from specific plaintiff
• Cannot prevent other plaintiffs from suing
• But reduces immediate repeat risk
Include Remediation Timeline:
• Settlement should include compliance plan
• Prevents immediate repeat lawsuit
• Document compliance for future defense
Proactive Protection: Removing Yourself from Target Lists
The only way to truly protect against serial plaintiff litigation is to remove the violations they target:
Priority 1: Fix Automated-Scan Detectable Issues
These violations appear in 80%+ of complaints:
✅ Alt Text for Images
• Add descriptive alt text to meaningful images
• Empty alt="" for decorative images
• Describe image content and purpose
✅ Form Field Labels
• All inputs need associated labels
• Use
✅ Color Contrast
• 4.5:1 ratio for normal text
• 3:1 for large text (18pt+)
• Use WebAIM Contrast Checker
✅ Keyboard Navigation
• All functions work with keyboard
• Visible focus indicators
• No keyboard traps
✅ Link/Button Text
• No empty links
• Descriptive link text (not 'click here')
• Buttons labeled appropriately
Priority 2: Document Everything
• Accessibility statement on website
• Contact method for accessibility issues
• Records of all remediation efforts
• Training documentation
• Audit reports and remediation plans
Priority 3: Ongoing Monitoring
• Quarterly automated scans
• Annual professional audit
• New content accessibility review
• Vendor accessibility requirements
The Math:
• Fix top 5 violation types: $10,000-$30,000 → 70-80% risk reduction
• Comprehensive WCAG 2.1 AA: $50,000-$150,000 → 95%+ risk reduction
• Annual monitoring: $10,000-$25,000/year → Ongoing protection
• Single lawsuit settlement: $25,000-$65,000 → 0% risk reduction (may recur)
Proactive compliance costs less than reactive litigation.
Get Off the Target List
Serial plaintiffs target websites with obvious, documented violations. Fix those violations and you remove yourself from their systematic targeting. Start with a comprehensive scan to identify what they would find.
Scan Your Website NowThe revelation that 31 plaintiffs and 16 law firms drive over 50% of ADA website accessibility lawsuits changes how organizations should think about compliance. This is not random enforcement. It is systematic, economically-driven litigation that targets specific characteristics.
Understanding this reality leads to clear strategic conclusions:
1. You are being scanned. Automated tools have likely already tested your website. If obvious violations exist, you are in a targeting queue.
2. Settlement economics favor plaintiffs. The cost structure makes settlement rational, which sustains the litigation model.
3. Proactive compliance is cheaper. Fixing violations costs less than defending lawsuits, especially considering repeat exposure.
4. Documentation matters. Good faith efforts reduce damages and strengthen defense positions.
5. The system continues. Post-Acheson standing scrutiny slowed some plaintiffs, but new ones emerged. Serial litigation will persist as long as websites remain inaccessible.
The only way out is through: make your website accessible, document your efforts, and remove yourself from the target list. Organizations that invest in compliance today avoid the serial plaintiff litigation machine tomorrow.
Start by understanding your current exposure with a comprehensive accessibility scan. Then prioritize fixes based on what serial plaintiffs actually target. Document everything for good faith defense. And build accessibility into your ongoing operations so you never become a target again.