On February 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Statement of Interest in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc., 20-cv-01434 (N.D. Cal.). The DOJ urged the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to reject a proposed class action settlement involving claims of website inaccessibility under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. While not binding in court, this filing signals the DOJ’s clear frustration with the increasing number of attorneys using the ADA to extract profitable settlements from businesses with public-facing websites. The statement simultaneously reinforces the core principle of the ADA: ensuring accessibility in places of public accommodation.
Background on the Case
The case involves Juan Alcazar, a legally blind individual who uses screen-reader software, who alleged that Fashion Nova, a California-based online apparel retailer, operates an inaccessible website in violation of Title III of the ADA. After class certification and extensive litigation, the parties reached a settlement under which Fashion Nova agreed to pay $5.15 million into a common fund. From the fund, class counsel seeks $1,287,500 in attorneys’ fees and $1,235,259.03 in costs, leaving approximately $2.43 million for California class members.
The DOJ’s Objections
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division invoked its authority under the Class Action Fairness Act and 28 U.S.C. § 517, asserting that the proposed settlement was not “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). The DOJ raised two primary objections.
First, the DOJ argued the proposed injunctive relief, a single sentence requiring Fashion Nova to modify its website to achieve compliance, was insufficient because it lacked any mechanism for compliance monitoring or enforcement. The DOJ contrasted this with prior settlements it considered to be adequate, which included accessibility coordinators, staff training, regular third-party audits, and annual compliance reports.
Second, in a particularly notable twist, the DOJ criticized class counsel because the website they set up for potential class members to submit claims had accessibility barriers for users with screen readers. The DOJ retained an expert to evaluate the class settlement website who found significant accessibility barriers. The DOJ argued that these barriers could have caused class members to abandon the claims process or incorrectly complete the form, potentially disqualifying them from compensation.
Settlement Status
In response to the Statement of Interest, the Plaintiff filed a brief defending the settlement and attesting that the class website was, in fact, accessible. Fashion Nova joined only as to the sufficiency of the injunctive relief that the parties negotiated. The Court set an evidentiary hearing for March 30, 2026 to determine whether the claims website accessibility issues the government identified affected the ability of class members to file a claim before it approves the settlement.
Implications for Businesses
The DOJ’s Statement of Interest carries several important lessons for businesses with public-facing websites.
First, website accessibility remains a federal enforcement priority. The DOJ’s intervention confirms that its Civil Rights Division is actively monitoring ADA website accessibility litigation—including private class actions—and will participate where it believes proposed settlements fail to adequately protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. Businesses negotiating settlements in ADA website accessibility cases should be aware that the DOJ may scrutinize proposed terms.
Second, the DOJ confirmed it has not endorsed the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) as the legal standard. Significantly, the DOJ stated it “does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard for the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Title III of the ADA,” noting that “businesses can choose how they will ensure that the programs, services, and goods they provide online are accessible.” This is important for website owners because, as with non-digital accessibility, businesses retain discretion in how they ensure accessibility on their platforms. In practice, plaintiffs often advocate for WCAG compliance as part of the resolution of website accessibility claims. However, businesses should keep in mind that while WCAG may provide a useful technical framework, it is not a legally mandated standard, and businesses retain flexibility in their approach to accessibility under Title III.
Third, the DOJ expressed concern about generic commitments to accessibility, instead favoring injunctive relief with monitoring mechanisms. The DOJ cited prior settlements it considered adequate for comparable businesses, which included provisions such as designated accessibility coordinators, accessibility policies, staff training, third-party audits, and compliance reports. Businesses should keep in mind that the DOJ considers such elements of an accessibility program to be best practices, although they are not legal requirements under the ADA.
Fourth, the DOJ expressed clear frustration with attorneys who use the ADA for their own profit. The DOJ opened its brief by noting the “proposed settlement greatly enriches Plaintiff’s counsel while providing little value to most class members … we oppose using a civil claim principally to enrich class counsel on the backs of persons with disability instead of vindicating the rights of persons with disabilities.” Such strong language indicates disapproval of the current state of ADA website litigation and seemed to urge plaintiffs’ counsel to return their focus to the goals of the ADA: accessibility. The DOJ also noted that the plaintiff in this matter had filed more than 15 similar lawsuits over three months alleging identical barriers, “word for word,” and plaintiff’s counsel had filed over 500 of such suits, with the vast majority ending in undisclosed settlements.
Final Thoughts
The DOJ’s decision to file a Statement of Interest in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc. signals that while accessibility remains a priority for the administration, the government’s patience with attorneys who weaponize the ADA for profit is wearing thin. Whether the Court approves the settlement will be telling as to the next steps for businesses. In the meantime, the DOJ clearly expects businesses and plaintiffs to work collaboratively towards achieving digital accessibility, and it disapproves of lawsuits primarily aimed at financial gain. Website owners should heed the DOJ’s guidance as best practices and proactively audit their own accessibility programs to ensure that the programs, services, and goods they provide online are accessible to all users.
If you are facing a claim or have concerns about gaps in your business’s digital accessibility program, it is important to consult with counsel to evaluate the merits and determine an appropriate response strategy. Hinckley Allen is experienced in responding to demand letters, defending against claims, and can provide insight into best practices.
