ChatGPT Is Filing ADA Lawsuits: AI Fuels 40% Spike in Disability Claims

The barrier to filing an ADA lawsuit has collapsed. Here is the actual process individuals are using:

Step 1: Identify Accessibility Barriers (1 minute) A person with a disability encounters an inaccessible government website. They cannot access tax payment forms, read public meeting agendas, or submit permit applications due to missing alt text, unlabeled form fields, or inaccessible PDFs.

Step 2: Document Violations with AI (2 minutes) The individual pastes the website URL into ChatGPT with a prompt like: "Analyze this website for ADA accessibility violations and identify specific WCAG 2.1 failures." ChatGPT identifies missing alternative text, form label issues, color contrast failures, and keyboard navigation problems.

Step 3: Generate Legal Complaint (2 minutes) Another ChatGPT prompt: "Draft an ADA Title III federal court complaint against [Organization] for website accessibility violations including [list of violations]." ChatGPT generates a multi-page legal complaint with jurisdiction, standing, factual allegations, legal claims, and prayer for relief.

Step 4: File in Federal Court (30 seconds) The individual creates a PACER account, uploads the complaint, and files electronically. Filing fee: $402. Total time: under 5 minutes. Total cost: $402.

What This Means:

Historically, filing an ADA lawsuit required hiring an attorney who would charge $5,000-$15,000 upfront or work on contingency. That barrier eliminated 95% of potential claims. AI has removed that barrier entirely. If your website violates the ADA, anyone who encounters it can now file a lawsuit for less than $500 and 5 minutes of effort.

Federal pro se ADA Title III lawsuits increased 40% in 2025 compared to 2024, according to Seyfarth Shaw law firm tracking. This surge coincides precisely with ChatGPT reaching mainstream adoption and accessibility features becoming widely known.

The Numbers:
• Pro se filings: 40% increase year-over-year (2024 to 2025)
• Total federal lawsuits projected for 2026: 5,500+ cases
• Traditional plaintiff firms: Steady filing rates (not increasing)
• Pro se plaintiffs: Explosive growth in first-time filers
• Average time from website visit to lawsuit: 7-14 days (down from 60-90 days with attorneys)

Who Is Filing These Lawsuits:

The new wave of pro se plaintiffs includes individuals with visual disabilities, mobility impairments, and hearing disabilities who previously lacked resources to pursue legal action. Many are filing single lawsuits against organizations that denied them access to specific services. Unlike serial plaintiffs who file hundreds of cases, these are often one-time filers seeking genuine access.

Why This Is More Dangerous:

Traditional plaintiff law firms were predictable. They targeted industries systematically, used similar legal strategies, and settled within known ranges. Pro se plaintiffs using AI are unpredictable. They file against any organization that happens to deny them access. They may have unrealistic settlement expectations. They may lack understanding of legal procedures, making cases harder to resolve quickly.

Learn about AI-proof compliance strategies that address both traditional and AI-enabled litigation.

Some organizations believe if AI can file lawsuits, AI can also prevent them. This is dangerously wrong. While ChatGPT can draft complaints, it cannot reliably audit websites for WCAG compliance.

Why AI Audits Fail:

1. False Negatives (Missed Violations): AI tools cannot detect many critical accessibility barriers. They miss unlabeled form fields if HTML is structured unusually. They fail to identify keyboard navigation traps. They cannot evaluate whether alt text is actually descriptive or just generic placeholder text. One study found AI audits missed 60-70% of violations that screen reader users encounter.

2. False Positives (Non-Issues Flagged as Violations): AI tools over-report violations, flagging compliant elements as failures. This creates noise that makes real issues harder to identify. Organizations waste resources fixing non-problems while actual barriers remain.

3. Context Blindness: Accessibility requires understanding context. Is this image decorative or informative? Is this color contrast failure in essential content or purely decorative design? AI cannot make these judgment calls reliably.

4. No Assistive Technology Testing: The only way to know if a website is truly accessible is testing with actual screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, and voice control software. AI tools cannot replicate this real-world experience.

The Industry Consensus:

The Web Accessibility Initiative, accessibility experts, and federal courts all agree: There is no AI tool that can fully evaluate a website based on WCAG 2.1 AA standards. Automated testing catches approximately 30-40% of accessibility barriers. Manual testing by experts is required.

What Works: Combination approach using automated tools to identify obvious issues, manual expert review for complex violations, and assistive technology testing with real users. AI can assist but cannot replace human expertise.

While AI tools enable lawsuit filing, they also create serious credibility problems. Multiple federal judges have sanctioned attorneys and pro se plaintiffs for submitting AI-generated briefs containing fabricated case citations that do not exist.

Recent Court Sanctions:

• Federal judge in New York sanctioned attorneys $5,000 for filing brief with ChatGPT-generated fake cases
• Colorado court dismissed lawsuit after discovering AI-fabricated legal precedents
• At least one federal judge banned AI use in court filings entirely
• Courts now routinely ask whether filings used AI assistance

Why This Happens:

ChatGPT and similar tools will confidently cite cases that sound real but are completely fabricated. When asked to support legal arguments, AI invents case names, court decisions, and legal holdings that never existed. Attorneys and pro se plaintiffs who fail to verify these citations face sanctions, dismissal, and professional discipline.

What This Means for Defendants:

If you are sued by a pro se plaintiff using AI-generated complaints, carefully review all legal citations. Many will be fake. Courts are increasingly skeptical of AI-assisted filings and may dismiss cases with fabricated citations. However, this does not mean you can ignore the lawsuit—respond properly and raise these issues through counsel.

The Credibility Problem:

AI-enabled litigation creates a credibility crisis. Some claims are legitimate individuals seeking genuine access. Others are poorly researched complaints with fake legal citations filed by people who do not understand legal procedures. Courts struggle to distinguish between the two, making resolution more complex and expensive for everyone.

The AI litigation revolution requires updated compliance strategies:

Immediate Actions:

1. Assume Your Violations Are Visible If ChatGPT can identify your accessibility barriers in 60 seconds, assume every visitor to your website can too. Run automated scans to find obvious violations that AI tools detect easily. Fix missing alt text, unlabeled forms, and color contrast failures immediately.

2. Do Not Rely on Overlays or Widgets Accessibility overlays and automated fix widgets do not prevent lawsuits. Courts have rejected overlay defenses repeatedly. AI tools ignore overlays when analyzing accessibility. Fix underlying code issues.

3. Test with Real Assistive Technology Since AI audits are unreliable, use human testers with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, and voice control software. This is the only way to identify barriers that real users encounter.

4. Document Compliance Efforts If sued by an AI-assisted pro se plaintiff, documented good faith compliance efforts strengthen your defense. Keep records of audits, remediation plans, training, and accessibility policies.

5. Respond to Every Lawsuit Properly Even if the complaint appears AI-generated with questionable legal citations, respond within deadlines with proper legal counsel. Courts will not dismiss cases automatically just because AI was used.

Long-Term Strategy:

• Implement WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance across all web properties
• Train content creators on accessibility requirements
• Establish ongoing monitoring and testing processes
• Create accessible document policies for PDFs
• Caption all videos
• Fix issues before they become lawsuits

The Bottom Line:

AI has made filing lawsuits easier, but it has not changed what constitutes compliance. WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards remain the requirement. Organizations that achieve genuine accessibility face minimal risk regardless of whether lawsuits are filed by specialized firms or AI-assisted individuals.