DOJ Blocks $5M ADA Website Settlement: Why 'Paper Compliance' Won't Work Anymore

1. No Concrete Accessibility Steps

The settlement required Fashion Nova to "modify" its website to achieve WCAG 2.1 compliance within 180 days — but specified no concrete steps, no testing methodology, and no definition of what compliance means in practice. The DOJ called this "vague injunctive relief."

2. No Monitoring or Enforcement

Class Counsel’s obligation to monitor Fashion Nova’s compliance was optional, not mandatory. There was no third-party auditor, no automated testing requirement, and no mechanism for class members to report continued barriers.

3. Lawyers Paid More Than Victims

Plaintiffs’ attorneys stood to receive $2.52 million in fees — more than the $2.43 million allocated to the entire California class. Each household would receive a maximum of $4,000. The DOJ characterized this as attorneys being "enriched on the backs of persons with disabilities."

4. The Settlement Website Was Inaccessible

In a detail that underscores the DOJ’s point: the claims administrator website — where blind class members were supposed to file their claims — was itself not accessible to screen readers. A settlement supposedly helping blind users couldn’t even be accessed by blind users.

• The plaintiff filed 20 identical lawsuits between 2020 and 2021, alleging the same four accessibility barriers across different websites
• Class Counsel had filed over 500 similar cases between 2019 and 2023, with the majority settling confidentially
• The DOJ noted the repeat-filing pattern as context for why settlements in these cases deserve heightened scrutiny

This aligns with broader 2025 data: 31 serial plaintiffs were responsible for 50% of all ADA website lawsuits filed nationally. The concentration of filings by a small number of plaintiffs and firms has been a growing concern — and the DOJ is now signaling it will intervene when settlements appear to benefit lawyers rather than people with disabilities.

The Bar for "Compliance" Just Got Higher

Vague commitments to "make websites accessible" without concrete steps, timelines, and testing won’t satisfy the DOJ. Government entities negotiating consent decrees or responding to complaints should expect the DOJ to demand specific WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria, documented testing, and ongoing monitoring.

Documentation Must Be Real

A compliance certificate that says "we’re working on it" isn’t compliance. The DOJ wants evidence of actual accessibility testing, specific violations identified and fixed, and a monitoring plan with teeth. This is exactly the kind of good faith documentation that matters.

Monitoring Is Now Expected

The DOJ specifically objected to the lack of mandatory monitoring. Government entities should plan for ongoing accessibility testing — not a one-time fix. Quarterly monitoring plans are becoming the standard.

Attorney Fee Scrutiny

For government entities that receive demand letters offering to settle for $5,000-$15,000: the DOJ’s scrutiny of attorney fees means these demand-letter mills may face more judicial skepticism. But it also means genuine enforcement actions will carry higher standards.

1. Get a Concrete Baseline

Run an actual accessibility scan that identifies specific WCAG 2.1 AA violations — not a vague "accessibility score." Document every violation with its success criterion, severity, and affected page.

2. Fix and Document

Remediate violations with timestamps. Keep records showing what was found, what was fixed, when it was fixed, and who verified the fix. The DOJ wants to see a paper trail of real work, not a checkbox on a vendor contract.

3. Establish Ongoing Monitoring

Set up quarterly or monthly testing. Automated scans catch the obvious issues; manual testing catches the rest. The point the DOJ is making: accessibility is an ongoing obligation, not a one-time project.

Get a compliance documentation package that meets the standard the DOJ is now demanding.