Florida attorney’s 200-plus ADA website lawsuits spotlight Jacksonville businesses’ compliance costs and unsettled legal standards

A Jacksonville restaurant’s settlement illustrates a wider wave of ADA website litigation

A federal lawsuit over website accessibility ended with Cowford Chophouse, a downtown Jacksonville steakhouse, paying about $20,000 to settle claims that its website was not usable for blind visitors. The dispute centered on whether the site provided equal access to basic information and features—an issue increasingly litigated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as commerce and customer service move online.

The case is part of a broader pattern in which visually impaired plaintiffs allege barriers such as inaccessible online menus, missing alternative text for images, and difficulty locating essential business details like addresses and hours. In many filings, plaintiffs argue that these barriers prevent blind users who rely on screen readers from communicating with a business on equal terms.

A small number of firms and repeat plaintiffs account for a large share of filings

A review of federal court filings over the last several years shows that ADA website cases have surged into the thousands, with a significant portion brought by a limited group of law firms. In Florida, one South Florida attorney, Aleksandra Kravets, has filed more than 200 ADA website lawsuits. Her client, Jonathan Drummond of Jacksonville, is listed as the named plaintiff in dozens of those cases, including suits involving Jacksonville-area businesses.

For business owners, the financial pressure can be immediate. Defending a case can be costly even before a court rules, and many defendants report that settlement becomes the quickest route to certainty, with payments frequently combining remediation commitments and attorney’s fees.

Debate centers on whether cases target real barriers or technical defects

Legal experts and business advocates disagree on how to interpret many of the claims. Some attorneys who defend businesses in ADA website cases argue that many modern sites are broadly usable but can still contain technical errors that expose them to litigation. Disability-rights advocates and plaintiffs’ counsel counter that routine usability for some users does not guarantee equal access for blind users and that enforcement is necessary to drive compliance.

At the core of the disputes is a recurring question: what, precisely, constitutes ADA-compliant web design when the law does not provide a single, universally binding technical checklist for every private business website.

Accessibility “widgets” have not eliminated risk—and have drawn regulatory scrutiny

Many small businesses have tried to reduce risk by installing third-party accessibility tools that promise quick fixes. One prominent vendor, accessiBe, reached a $1 million settlement with federal regulators in 2025 over allegations that it made deceptive claims about what its automated tool could achieve and how endorsements were presented. The action added new uncertainty for businesses seeking cost-effective solutions and reinforced that automated overlays may not resolve underlying accessibility issues.

Policy proposals in other states signal possible reforms

While federal standards remain contested in courts, some state lawmakers outside Florida have begun considering measures aimed at curbing what supporters describe as predatory website-accessibility suits. Proposals include requiring advance notice of alleged violations and allowing time to fix problems before a lawsuit can proceed.

• Jacksonville businesses have been named in multiple ADA website cases, particularly in the restaurant and hospitality sector.

• Repeat plaintiffs and specialized firms have driven a sizable share of filings statewide.

• Regulatory scrutiny of “one-click compliance” tools has increased, complicating remediation decisions for small operators.

For Jacksonville businesses, the emerging picture is one of growing legal exposure tied to digital access—alongside unresolved questions about the technical benchmarks courts will ultimately treat as the standard for compliance.