Nayan Padrai, president of EcomBack, said most lawsuits filed against small business owners alleging accessibility issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are motivated by profit and do not align with original intent of the law.
“Some lawsuits have been helpful in increasing access, however in my opinion a majority of these lawsuits are driven by a profit motive for attorneys,” Padrai told KC Reporter. “It is quite widespread and in my opinion the ADA wasn’t designed to be enforced with such practices.”
“State and federal rules that allow for a notice-to-cure, tech based solutions, and moreover exploiting vulnerable disabled people to sue vulnerable small businesses isn’t the proper way to achieve a universal goal of accessibility,” said Padrai.
EcomBack is a company that works with businesses on website accessibility issues related to the ADA.
The ADA, enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and requires businesses open to the public to provide accessible services and facilities
Padrai’s comments come as Gov. Mike Kehoe (R-Mo.) is considering signing SB 907, a bill passed by both houses of the Missouri legislature, which would address a rise in ADA lawsuits filed against Missouri small businesses.
The issue has gained attention as more than 120 businesses in Missouri and neighboring states—including restaurants, local retailers, and nonprofit organizations—have been sued over alleged website accessibility violations. One plaintiff’s attorney in Kansas City has reportedly filed dozens of such lawsuits on behalf of a legally blind client, claiming that business websites are not compatible with screen-reader software, reported KMBC-TV.
Brad Jones, Missouri director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which represents 8,000 small businesses in Missouri, told Show-Me State Times that business owners are often surprised when they learn how the lawsuits operate.
“When you explain this to them, their jaws kind of drop open and they can’t believe that something this egregious could actually happen,” Jones said.
The bill on Kehoe’s desk, known as the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation,” would allow the state’s attorney general or targeted residents to challenge lawsuits suspected of being filed primarily for financial gain rather than accessibility improvements.
Under the measure, a claim would be considered abusive only if “the primary purpose of the litigation was to obtain a monetary settlement unrelated to improving accessibility or enforcing accessibility rights.”
Jones said the issue first emerged with demand letters sent to businesses alleging ADA website violations and offering quick settlements.
“They said, ‘look, we can make this go away. All you need to do is settle with us,’” he said.
Jones said a key factor is the financial incentive behind the lawsuits.
“They’re getting somewhere around $10,000 to $15,000, which is a real sweet spot because it’s enough that it’s a lot, but it’s not enough that you’re going to take this thing on to court,” he said.
Jones said businesses that choose to fight the lawsuits often face exorbitant legal fees, making settlement a more palatable option.
