Responding to Website Compliance Claims + Lawsuits

Businesses with public-facing or consumer interactive websites are frequently the target of claims and lawsuits alleging failures to comply with applicable laws and regulations and seeking recovery of significant damages.  Thousands of these claims are filed yearly, with a large majority brought by about a dozen law firms. These claims often include potential class action allegations.

Regularly reviewing and updating their websites will help businesses conform with current laws and regulations to avoid such claims. If claims are asserted, however, some may be refuted or resolved quickly, and others defended or settled with various protections for the company.

Visually and Hearing Impaired ADA + Similar Website Accessibility Claims

Visually impaired website visitors, along with the hearing impaired and those otherwise disabled, are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and various other statutes, regulations and state laws.¹

Business websites are frequently the source of claims by plaintiffs’ attorneys alleging website inaccessibility for their clients. A careful and prompt review of the allegations and the website, along with a proactive response such as conducting website accessibility audits and implementing necessary remediation measures, may help limit exposure.²

Compliance with the law: There is no specific legal standard for website accessibility compliance, but the generally accepted standard for website accessibility for the visually impaired is set forth in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)³, as updated periodically.

The WCAG provides multiple standards regarding website accessibility, including the use of screen readers and other access aids. Similarly, closed captioning for audio portions of videos embedded on company websites is a standard established by the WCAG. 

Defending or settling claims: If a company receives a demand letter or complaint, an initial assessment can determine if the website has minor (or no substantive) issues, or to identify those issues that may need to be addressed. Engaging legal counsel to respond to the complaint or a demand letter can be helpful in refuting weak or incorrect claims and demanding that the suit or claims be withdrawn, or to allow for an early resolution of the claims.

If the plaintiffs’ counsel refuses to dismiss improper claims, the lawsuit can be defended by showing substantial compliance with the law. If there is some potential exposure, engaging counsel to negotiate a small, acceptable, early settlement, releases, confirmation of accessibility compliance in the future, and other terms may be in the company’s best interests.

Website compliance: Promptly resolving any website accessibility defects can avoid or prevent claims, as can systems that keep the website in compliance with accessibility requirements as new features are added. The company may have in-house staff that can perform this work. Alternatively, numerous vendors offer these services to companies whose in-house technical staff may not have the expertise to comply with requirements.

Federal Wiretap Act + Invasion of Privacy Act Claims

Website trackers are tools or technologies used to monitor and collect data about users' interactions with a website. They can gather information such as browsing behavior, preferences, and personal data. Types of website trackers include:

• Cookies: Small files stored on a user’s device to remember preferences and track activity.
• SuperCookies: More persistent than regular cookies, often used to track users even after cookies are cleared.
• Browser Fingerprinting: Uses unique user browser and device configurations to identify and track them.
• Header Enrichment: Adds information to HTTP headers to track users across sites.

Website trackers are used for various purposes, including analytics, targeted advertising, improving user experience, security, and fraud prevention.

Lawsuits under the Federal Wiretap Act, part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, often allege improper interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and/or electronic communications. Multiple states have their versions of a wiretap act, which can vary from the federal law.

Demands and complaints related to website data collection often involve allegations of unauthorized interception of electronic communications, including, for example, that website trackers or pixels intercept users’ keystrokes and other electronic communications or that the website trackers track users’ browsing activity and that these are unlawful interceptions under federal or state Wiretap Acts.

Demands and complaints also frequently assert claims under state law for invasion of privacy, such as alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which is a state law that protects individuals from unauthorized interception or eavesdropping on their communications without consent. Other states have similar invasion of privacy statutes, but the trend in demands and complaints related to website tracking tend to cite CIPA due to the stringent consumer privacy rights laws in California.

Our Team

Robinson+Cole has significant experience advising companies with regard to website compliance demand letters and complaints, and our team can assist with reviewing claims and providing a defense or seeking a quick resolution to these claims.

---