By: Lawrence S. Han and Sean N. Simensky
Dental practices and other healthcare providers are increasingly being targeted in website-accessibility lawsuits alleging that public-facing websites are not accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. These lawsuits are typically brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), often together with parallel state and local civil-rights statutes, and they commonly allege that website barriers prevent patients or prospective patients from accessing the goods and services offered by the practice.
The complaints generally allege that the website contains digital barriers such as missing alternative text for images, unlabeled or inaccessible online forms, lack of keyboard navigation, color-contrast deficiencies, inaccessible PDFs, and compatibility issues with screen-reader software. Plaintiffs frequently reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), an accessibility framework published by the World Wide Web Consortium, as the benchmark for remediation, even though the ADA does not currently prescribe a formal technical standard for private businesses’ public-facing websites.
Courts remain divided on the extent to which Title III applies to websites, and some courts have held that website-only businesses are not subject to the ADA because they do not qualify as “places of public accommodation” as defined by the statute. Businesses that operate physical locations open to the public, however, face greater exposure where the website is alleged to have a sufficient connection to the goods or services offered at those locations. These cases are often filed as putative class actions and seek injunctive relief requiring website remediation, attorneys’ fees, and, where available under state or local law, statutory or compensatory damages.
Why Dental Practice Websites Are Being Targeted
Dental offices are generally places of public accommodation under Title III because they operate physical offices open to patients. Although courts differ on the precise scope of Title III’s application to websites, healthcare-provider websites present heightened risk where there is a clear connection between the website and the services offered at the brick-and-mortar location. That connection is often present when the website allows patients to request appointments, complete intake paperwork, obtain information about services, access patient portals, communicate with the office, or use billing and payment functions.
For dental practices, the most common areas of concern are online appointment-scheduling tools, patient-intake forms, downloadable PDFs, provider biographies, office-location pages, treatment descriptions, and patient-portal links. If those features cannot be used with assistive technology, a plaintiff may allege that the website denies equal access to the practice’s in-office services even if there are alternative methods to contact the practice, including via telephone or email.
New York Claims and the Post-Calcano Landscape
In New York website-accessibility cases, plaintiffs often plead ADA claims together with claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Second Circuit’s decision in Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. has made Article III standing a more significant threshold issue for serial ADA plaintiffs in federal district court, particularly where complaints rely on boilerplate allegations and do not plausibly allege a concrete intent to return to, or use the goods or services of, the business at issue. In response, some plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ firms have placed greater emphasis on New York State and City law claims and have pursued those claims in New York State Supreme Court rather than federal district court.
Practical Risks for Dental Practices
Dental offices named in these suits commonly face accelerated settlement demands requiring website remediation, payment of plaintiffs’ costs, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and potential statutory or compensatory damages. These lawsuits can also cause operational disruption if appointment scheduling, intake forms, patient communications, or marketing pages must be rebuilt on a short timeline.
Settlements may also require more than a one-time website fix. They often include commitments to complete accessibility audits, adopt an accessibility policy, train personnel who manage website content, maintain an accessible feedback channel, report on remediation progress, and monitor the website on an ongoing basis. These obligations can be particularly burdensome for smaller practices that depend on outside website vendors or practice-management platforms, especially if these smaller practices have not yet taken steps to evaluate or improve their website’s accessibility under WCAG.
Third-Party Vendors Do Not Eliminate the Risk
Many dental practices rely on third-party vendors for website design, patient-intake forms, appointment-scheduling platforms, payment tools, patient portals, chat features, maps, and plug-ins. These tools may be built, hosted, or maintained by outside vendors, leaving the practice with limited ability to modify the underlying code or bring the platform into WCAG conformance. That practical limitation, however, does not necessarily eliminate the practice’s exposure where the inaccessible feature is part of the patient-facing experience.
Practices should therefore treat vendor accessibility as a risk-management issue. At a minimum, they should ask vendors whether their products conform to WCAG; request documentation of accessibility testing; obtain remediation timelines for known issues; require accessibility representations, cooperation obligations, and indemnification provisions in vendor agreements where possible; and maintain an accessible alternative for patients who cannot use an online tool while remediation is underway. Practices should also be cautious about relying on purported “quick fixes,” including overlays, plug-ins, or AI tools, because those measures are often insufficient by themselves and may not bring the website or platform into compliance with applicable WCAG standards.
Recommended Next Steps
Dental practices should consider conducting an accessibility review of their public-facing websites and any linked patient-facing tools, prioritizing features that patients use to schedule appointments, complete forms, access information, or communicate with the office. Practices should also confirm who is responsible for accessibility remediation, preserve records of remediation efforts, and develop an internal process for promptly responding to accessibility complaints or demand letters.
Because these claims can move quickly and settlement demands often include both remediation and fee components, early legal and technical review can help preserve defenses, reduce avoidable costs, and place the practice in a stronger position to respond.