Web accessibility has been best practice for a long time, but a court ruling earlier this year set the groundwork for a solid legal strategy, too. The difference between a dismissed lawsuit and a costly court battle may come down to whether you have a documented, ongoing web accessibility conformance process in place. This is why I’m excited to launch my new Website Accessibility Monitoring Service and share a bit about why I structured it the way I did.
What the Courts Are Telling Us
In Jones v. Moscot.com, LLC, decided in early March of 2026 by the Southern District of New York, a legally blind plaintiff sued an online retailer under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that his screen-reading software couldn’t navigate the site well enough to complete a purchase.
The short version is that the case was dismissed, not because the retailer had a perfectly accessible website, but because they had, as the kids say, the receipts.
The court applied what’s called the voluntary-cessation standard, requiring the defendant to show both that the alleged violation had ceased and that it couldn’t reasonably be expected to recur. The retailer was able to demonstrate exactly that, because they had been working with a digital accessibility vendor since May 2023 (before the lawsuit was even filed) and had taken documented steps toward Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) conformance while continuing to actively test and remediate their site after the complaint was served.
The plaintiff submitted no evidence to counter this record. The court found it “absolutely clear” the site was conformant and intended to stay that way. Case dismissed.
This indicates that businesses are in a stronger position when they can show documented accessibility efforts and prompt remediation of identified issues before a lawsuit even comes up, and that’s what’s critical to understand. Unlike an annual or twice-a-year audit with one-time fixes, evidence of an ongoing process towards conformance to WCAG Guidelines is what can render a plaintiff’s claims moot.
I’ll say it louder for the people in the back: Ongoing process. Not an “every once in a while” thing, but a documented, continuous effort.
Which is exactly what this service is designed to provide.
Introducing Website Accessibility Audit & Monitoring
I’m offering three tiers because every business needs a different level of support. Some businesses just want to know where they stand, while others want someone in the trenches with them (hi! It’s me!), fixing things as they come up. You can pick your level of involvement.
Every plan starts the same way though: a one-time onboarding audit and remediation ($395). This provides a clean baseline and the documented starting point you’d want in hand if anyone ever came knocking.
From there, you choose the ongoing plan that fits your needs:
Awareness
Best suited for sites with an in-house dev who handles fixes
$89
/ month
or $235 / quarter
Continuous weekly automated monitoring
Quarterly report includes what was monitored
No remediation included
Maintenance
Steady upkeep suitable for most small business clients
$360
/ month
Continuous weekly automated monitoring
Monthly summary report includes what was monitored and addressed
Up to 2 hours of remediation included per month
Proactive
More coverage for content-heavy or high-stakes sites
$725
/ month
Continuous weekly automated monitoring
Monthly summary report includes what was monitored and addressed
Up to 5 hours of remediation included per month
Quarterly 30-minute “office hours” call to address questions or concerns
Priority turnaround on remediation
Why Continuous Monitoring Matters More Than a One-Time Fix
In the Moscot ruling, the court explicitly distinguished between a defendant who makes a one-time fix and one who demonstrates an ongoing process. A single accessibility audit (even a super thorough one) doesn’t create that record. Continuous monitoring does.
With weekly automated scans running in the background, every client on any of my plans is building the kind of documented conformance history that courts find meaningful. In fixing today’s problems, we’re creating a paper trail that shows you take this seriously over time. ADA Title III applies broadly to places of public accommodation and courts have consistently held that websites qualify; whether you’re a retailer with e-commerce, a healthcare provider, a nonprofit, or a small business with an online presence, you could be held accountable.
This Isn’t Just About Avoiding Lawsuits
While mitigating the risk is certainly top of mind for many, accessibility is also just the right thing to do and screen readers, keyboard navigation, and captioning serve a larger share of the population than most people realize. Roughly one in four adults in the United States (that’s more than 70 million people) lives with some form of disability, according to the CDC. These technologies are how a significant portion of your potential customers and clients experience the web and an accessible site is a better site in a multitude of ways. Aside from lessening legal backlash, accessible websites tend to perform better in search, load faster, and convert more broadly. The legal protection is a meaningful bonus, but not the whole point.
Ready to Get Started?
If you’re unsure where your site stands, the one-time accessibility audit is the right first step. It gives you a clear picture of your current accessibility posture and an explanation of what needs attention, without the commitment.
If you’re ready to start building your conformance record, view the monitoring plans and pick the level of involvement that fits your site and your budget.
Not sure where you fit? Get in touch and let’s talk about which plan makes sense for your site.
This post references: Jones v. Moscot.com, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2026), as analyzed by Robert T. Quackenboss of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, published in the National Law Review on May 12, 2026.
(CLCreative is not a law office and I do not practice law. Nothing I present on this website constitutes legal advice and is provided for educational and informational purposes only.)