California Website Cases: State or Federal?

California looks like two different states in website accessibility data, depending on which court you count. In federal court, the 2025 website count is tiny. In wider counts that include state court, California is a major venue. Neither number is wrong. They measure different court systems, and the choice of court is the story.

Seyfarth Shaw counted only 4 new website accessibility lawsuits in California federal courts in 2025, against a national federal total of 3,117 website cases. Seyfarth also notes that its federal numbers do not include state court lawsuits, and that it still sees a significant number of demand letters and state court lawsuits, especially against businesses with physical locations. A reader who stops at the number 4 will miss the second half of that sentence, which is where California activity actually sits.

The wider count, and why it differs

EcomBack counted 787 California website lawsuits in its 2025 state-wise table, up from 485 in 2024, a rise of 62.27 percent on its count, on a national total of 3,948. UsableNet, which reviews complaints in federal and key state courts, reported nearly 2,000 cases filed in New York and California state courts combined in 2025, with federal filings adding more than 3,100 cases nationally on top, and more than 5,000 digital accessibility lawsuits in total, including websites, mobile apps, and online services.

Those numbers cannot be added together. Seyfarth counts federal website accessibility filings found through a keyword search of court news data and reviewed by hand. EcomBack counts a wider state-wise set of website lawsuits. UsableNet counts digital accessibility lawsuits in federal and key state courts, a wider subject set than websites alone. The honest comparison is scope first, number second: federal website cases in California were 4 on the Seyfarth count, while wider counts that include state court put California in the hundreds. The gap is a court system gap, not an arithmetic error.

Why plaintiffs choose state court in California

California gives plaintiffs a state route that federal court does not. Civil Code section 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, says all persons are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Section 51(f) says a violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act shall also constitute a violation of section 51. That bridge lets a federal ADA website theory be pleaded as a state Unruh claim, with the state damages rule in section 52.

Section 52(a) says a person who denies or discriminates contrary to section 51 is liable for each and every offense for actual damages, and any amount up to three times actual damages, but in no case less than $4,000, plus attorney fees as determined by the court. The section 52 text and the section 51 text should be read together, because the $4,000 figure is a floor per offense, not a total for a case, and the amount above the floor turns on actual damages as determined by a jury or court. A state court claim therefore offers a damages structure that a private federal Title III claim, which generally seeks injunctive relief and fees, does not offer in the same form.

The online-only question, and the physical place line

Seyfarth reports that both federal and California state courts of appeals have reached the conclusion that online-only businesses are not covered by the ADA, making it virtually impossible, in its words, for plaintiffs to file viable lawsuits against online-only businesses for accessibility violations in that setting. That conclusion does not end California website litigation, because Seyfarth in the same post still sees significant state court lawsuits, especially against businesses with physical locations.

The line that matters is the link to a physical place. A website for a shop, a restaurant, a clinic marketing site, or a hotel is tied to goods and services a visitor uses in person, by phone, or through a booking. A website for a business with no physical place at all presents a different legal question, and appellate courts in California have treated that question differently from the physical place case. A business should not read the online-only conclusion as a shield for a site tied to a physical location, and should not read a state court filing count as proof that online-only sites face the same exposure. The facts, and the court, decide which side of the line a case falls on.

Procedure also differs by court. Federal court pleading, standing, and scheduling rules differ from state court rules, and a plaintiff may choose the court whose rules fit the facts and the claim. A defendant may try to move a case between systems. That is why a demand letter should be read for the court and the law it names, not only for the barrier it lists.

A note on a law that does not apply here

California SB 84 is sometimes cited in website discussions as a right to cure law. It is not a website accessibility law. It deals with construction and physical access. This article does not cite it for websites, and a reader who sees it cited that way should treat the citation as an error. The right to cure question for websites, where it exists, comes from other states and other statutes, each with its own text and status. Do not import a construction rule into a digital case.

What to fix, whichever court hears the case

Court choice does not change the barriers. Images with no text alternative, form fields with no label, links and buttons with no name, low contrast text, and keyboard traps appear in complaints in both systems. Fix the purchase, booking, and contact flows first, because those are the flows a complaint describes in concrete terms. Then work through templates, since a broken header or form component repeats the same barrier on every page that uses it.

Axeazy runs 98 automated checks and covers 14 fix categories, including alt text, form labels, link names, button names, keyboard tab order, and heading structure. Colour contrast is reported with a calculated correct colour, and a visible colour change is never applied without owner approval. Paid prices are shown at checkout on Axeazy pricing, with annual billing saving 20 to 25 percent, and agency scope for up to 10 client sites is on Axeazy agency. For a site with a GitHub repo, fixes arrive as a real pull request with a visible diff that the owner or developer reviews and merges. For WordPress, a free plugin applies 3 instant render time fixes. For Shopify, the scan works and fixes come as a guided checklist, never as automatic code changes.

Keep a dated record by page, issue, criterion, fix, and retest date, and keep the demand letter or complaint with it. Note which court and law a claim names.

Related reading on tool choice by fix method is here: Best Accessibility Tools for Small Business

FAQ

Why is the California federal count only 4 in 2025?

Because Seyfarth counts federal website accessibility filings only, and California website claims in 2025 largely ran in state court under the Unruh Act. The federal count excludes state court lawsuits, demand letters, and wider digital claims.

Does a low federal count mean California websites face little exposure?

No. EcomBack counted 787 California website lawsuits in its wider 2025 table, and UsableNet reported nearly 2,000 New York and California state court cases combined. The exposure question turns on the court, the claim, and the facts, not on one federal number.

What does the Unruh Act add to an ADA website claim?

Section 51(f) ties an ADA violation to a section 51 violation, and section 52(a) sets a $4,000 floor per offense, with actual damages up to three times that amount as determined by a jury or court, plus attorney fees as determined by the court. That state damages structure differs from a private federal Title III claim, which generally seeks injunctive relief and fees.

What should I do if I received a demand letter or was sued in California?

This article gives general information, not legal advice. Talk to a qualified attorney if you received a demand letter or were sued. Note whether the claim names federal court or state court, whether it pleads the Unruh Act, and whether the business has a physical place, then keep the letter and your dated scan and fix record for that conversation.

Last checked: October 31, 2026 Sources

• Seyfarth Shaw ADA Title III blog, federal website filings in 2025
• EcomBack 2025 ADA website lawsuit annual report
• UsableNet ADA web lawsuit trends for 2026, 2025 filings
• California Civil Code sections 51 and 52, California Legislative Information Start with a free homepage scan to see the barriers a visitor meets first: Axeazy homepage

Related reading

• Texas Website Accessibility: What Owners Should Know