Texas Website Accessibility: What Owners Should Know

Texas owners often ask a short question with a long answer: does the law reach a website, and does it matter that Texas filing counts look low? The short answer is that two routes exist, and they do not say the same thing. The federal route under ADA Title III is the one most website cases use. The Texas route under Human Resources Code chapter 121 covers public facilities in words written for physical places, and it does not name websites. A low filing count in one tracker does not turn either route off.

This is general information, not legal advice. If you received a demand letter or were sued, talk to a qualified attorney, and take your scan report and fix record to that meeting.

The Texas statute, in its own words

Chapter 121, section 121.003(a) says persons with disabilities have the same right as persons without disabilities to the full use and enjoyment of any public facility in the state: Texas Human Resources Code section 121.003

Section 121.002 defines a public facility to include a hotel, a retail business, a commercial establishment, an office building to which the general public is invited, a restaurant, and any other place of public accommodation to which the general public is regularly invited. That list reads like a list of places you can walk into. It does not mention a website, an app, or an online checkout. A Texas owner should not read the statute as a website rule, and should not read it as proof that websites sit outside the law either. The statute simply does not answer the website question on its face.

That gap is why the federal route matters more for most website questions. The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that ADA requirements apply to the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web: ADA guidance on web accessibility

The same guidance lists the barriers that show up again and again: poor color contrast, images with no text alternative, videos with no captions, online forms with no usable labels or error notes, and pages that can only be used with a mouse. Those five items are a practical starting checklist for a Texas site, whatever route a claim might take.

The court question Texas has not settled

Federal courts disagree about whether a website on its own counts as a place of public accommodation. Some circuits treat a website as covered on its own. Others require a link between the website and a physical place, so a site tied to a store, a restaurant, or an office is treated differently from a site with no physical place behind it.

Texas sits in the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit has not directly ruled on that question. The closest answer in Texas came from a federal district court in Houston in 2019, which leaned toward the physical link reading. A district court decision is not binding Fifth Circuit precedent, so the question stays open at the appellate level for Texas. An owner who runs a store with a website and an owner who runs an online-only shop therefore face different arguments, and both should get advice tied to their own facts rather than a blanket answer.

Standing is a second filter that applies before any court reaches the website question. A private federal case still needs a person who hit a real barrier and can show a real prospect of facing it again, for example by planning to return to the business or use the site again. A scan report that lists faults does not, on its own, answer that question. Keep the distinction in mind when you read any filing count: counts measure cases filed, not cases won, and not barriers proved.

What the filing count actually shows

Seyfarth Shaw counted 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, up 27 percent from 2,452 in 2024: Seyfarth Shaw 2025 federal website filings

The published per-state list for 2025 names 12 jurisdictions, and those 12 figures add to the full 3,117 total. Texas is not among them. That reading supports the honest statement that Texas federal website volume was low in that tracker for 2025. It does not support the claim that no Texas business received a letter, faced a state court case, or drew a complaint, because Seyfarth counts identified federal filings only, and letters and state cases sit outside that count.

Volume also moves. New York and Florida led the 2025 federal list, while other states moved up or down sharply in the same year. A Texas owner who plans around one quiet year is planning around a snapshot. The steadier plan is to fix the barriers that the Justice Department guidance names, keep a dated record of the work, and retest after each site change.

What to check on a Texas site first

Start with the five barrier types from the Justice Department guidance, in this order.

• Alt text: every image that carries meaning needs a short text alternative. Decorative images should be marked so screen readers skip them, not given a filename as a label.
• Forms: every field needs a label a screen reader can read, plus a clear error note when an entry is wrong. Placeholder text inside the box is not a label.
• Keyboard use: move through the whole page with the Tab key only. If focus disappears, lands on a hidden element, or gets trapped in a menu or popup, that is a fault to fix before anything cosmetic.
• Contrast: check body text and button text against their backgrounds. Light gray text on a white background is the classic failure, and it is easy to spot once you look for it.
• Headings and page structure: headings should run in order and describe the section below them, so a screen reader user can scan the page by headings the way a sighted visitor scans by eye.

Axeazy offers a free homepage scan that takes about 60 seconds, with no signup and no card, and paid plans show price at checkout with annual saving of 20 to 25 percent: Axeazy pricing

The scan runs 98 automated checks against WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 AA plus best practices, across 14 fix categories including alt text, skip navigation, language attributes, form labels, link names, button names, keyboard tab order, iframe titles, table header structure, landmark structure, and heading structure: Axeazy capabilities

For a site with a code repository, fixes arrive as a real pull request with a visible diff, reviewed and merged by the site owner or developer. For WordPress, a free plugin applies 3 instant render-time fixes covering a skip navigation link, a page language attribute, and an alt text fallback. For Shopify, owners receive a guided plain English checklist to apply in the theme editor, since Shopify does not get automatic fixes. Colour contrast is handled with care: the scan detects contrast problems and calculates a correct colour, but a visible colour change is never applied without owner approval.

For a wider way to judge any tool on price unit, fix method, record, and review step, see how to choose an accessibility tool, 10 criteria and best accessibility tools for small business

FAQ

Does Texas law require my website to meet a named technical standard?

No named website standard appears in chapter 121. The federal discussion usually points to WCAG 2.2 AA as the technical reference courts and settlements use, but that is a reference point, not a line in the Texas statute.

Does low Texas filing volume mean my site is safe?

No. The tracker count covers identified federal filings only. Letters, state cases, and complaints sit outside it, and volume shifts year to year. Treat a low count as context, not as a verdict on your site.

My business is online only, with no Texas store. Does that change the analysis?

It changes the argument, not the need to check the site. The open Fifth Circuit question turns in part on the link between a website and a physical place, so an online-only business faces a different legal argument from a store with a website. Get advice on your own setup.

What should I do first if a demand letter arrives?

Do not ignore it, and do not reply with promises about the site. Keep the letter, keep the envelope or email headers, run a scan, save the report with its date, and talk to a qualified attorney before you answer.

Last checked: October 31, 2026

Sources

• Texas Human Resources Code section 121.003
• Texas Human Resources Code section 121.002
• Seyfarth Shaw 2025 federal website accessibility filings
• Department of Justice guidance on web accessibility and the ADA
• Texas Bar article on website ADA case law
• Axeazy pricing page
• Axeazy capabilities page

For a dated starting record, run the free scan from Axeazy

Related reading

• Pennsylvania and Minnesota Website Accessibility Law