Publication Date



Federal courts have split in determining whether “tester” plaintiffs bringing suit under the ADA assert the requisite injury in fact necessary for Article III standing. These “website accessibility testers” allege that defendants’ websites do not make certain information available to disabled persons in violation of Title III of the ADA and one of its implementing regulations. This split presents an excellent opportunity to clarify which informational and stigmatic harms qualify as injuries in fact for Article III standing purposes. This Note argues that ADA website accessibility testers cannot obtain standing under current law. Neither the text of the ADA nor the Supreme Court’s recent standing decisions support standing for website accessibility testers. However, this Note also suggests that a statutory addition to the ADA in the form of a qui tam provision may provide a legislative workaround that would enable testers to proactively enforce Title III.