Parikh v. accessiBe: the customers' class action

analysisOn June 26, 2024 Sherwin K. Parikh MD, P.C., a New York medical practice trading as Tribeca Skin Center, filed a putative class action against accessiBe, Inc. and unnamed John Does in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 1:24-cv-04848), on diversity jurisdiction; accessiBe Inc. was served on July 11, 2024 through the New York Secretary of State. Registries identify the practice as an active dermatology organisation at 315 Church Street, New York, with National Provider Identifier 1891940946, and a later plaintiff, Safe Life Defense LLC, as a body-armour maker founded in 2016 and registered for U.S. federal contracting under UEI MN11BA63AZX5 and CAGE code 82BK1. The third plaintiff, Dillon Music, Inc. of Woodbridge, New Jersey, had itself been sued on May 15, 2024 in a class action in the same court (No. 1:24-cv-03735) by a blind plaintiff who alleged that a purchase could not be completed on its website, in violation of the ADA and New York human-rights laws. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6}

analysisThe original complaint pleaded breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith, violation of New York General Business Law § 349, breach of implied warranty, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and negligent misrepresentation. Parikh and Dillon Music filed a first amended complaint on October 16, 2024; on June 9, 2025 the court allowed a second amended complaint adding Safe Life Defense, LLC and denied accessiBe's earlier motion to dismiss as moot, and the new complaint was filed on June 10, 2025. accessiBe Inc. is represented by Blank Rome LLP lawyers, including Samuel David Levy and Martin S. Krezalek; on June 4, 2025 the court refused to disqualify Krezalek over a September 12, 2024 telephone call with a representative of Dillon Music, finding that no information significantly harmful to Dillon Music had been shown to have been communicated. ^{7 2 1}

analysisThe complaint, brought for all purchasers of accessWidget or accessFlow subscriptions, alleged that hundreds of class members had been sued under the ADA while accessiBe's product was on their websites, put the amount in controversy above $5 million and named parents, subsidiaries and affiliates of accessiBe, Inc. as John Doe defendants. It alleged that accessiBe claimed the widget would make any website conform to WCAG 2.1 level AA, and so comply with the ADA, within 48 hours and would prevent ADA lawsuits, whereas using it signalled a "flawed shortcut"; it cited a survey of ten federal district courts finding at least 91 ADA suits filed while accessiBe's product was on the defendant's site, and described the Litigation Support Package as no more than compliance claims and an automated audit report. Each named plaintiff says it was sued after installing the widget: Tribeca Skin Center, sued in January 2024, says accessiBe sent only an audit report calling its site WCAG AA and fully ADA-compliant, that it settled on its own and that a remediation firm then found dozens of non-conformities; Dillon Music, sued in May 2024, says support came months later as a promotional video and an audit report it calls false, after it had spent several thousand dollars in legal fees; Safe Life Defense, sued around March 2024, says accessiBe produced a compliance report it calls inaccurate. These are allegations, taken as true only to decide the motion to dismiss, not findings. accessiBe moved to dismiss, relying on its terms of service, which disclaim warranties, provide the product "as is", state that the widget does not guarantee freedom from non-compliance claims and cap liability at six months' fees or $50. Of the pleaded claims, only breach of contract insofar as it alleges that accessiBe misrepresented the widget's ability to ensure WCAG and ADA compliance survived the court's ruling of March 31, 2026; accessiBe Inc. answered the amended complaint on June 25, 2026, and the docket, last updated October 9, 2026, shows no settlement or judgment. ^{1 2}

analysisIn the March 31, 2026 opinion Judge P. Kevin Castel held that the plaintiffs, who signed up through a "Sign Up" button, were bound by accessiBe's terms of service to the extent they are enforceable; because those terms describe the Litigation Support Package as technical assistance only, not a legal service, and tell users to consult their own lawyers, the plaintiffs were on notice of its limited nature. The court found the terms' cap on liability unenforceable as applied to the claim that accessiBe promised full WCAG compliance, since the allegations about those promises and the widget's inability to deliver them plausibly alleged gross negligence or willful misconduct; it cited the FTC complaint's allegation that accessiBe's own testers found errors on nearly all sites tested and the Overlay Fact Sheet, while noting that "internet chatter may come from biased sources", and it treated the promise that the product would "stop any lawsuit in its tracks" as puffery. The court dismissed the other claims: the litigation-support and good-faith theories, because the terms define that package; implied contract, because an express contract governs; § 349, because the complaint did not plausibly allege conduct directed at consumers; the warranty and Magnuson-Moss claims, because a software service is not a good and three named plaintiffs fall short of the statute's 100; and negligent misrepresentation as duplicative. By agreement only Dillon Music, still a subscriber, may pursue injunctive relief. The court also took judicial notice that the FTC investigation ended in a $1 million settlement in which accessiBe admitted no wrongdoing. ¹

analysisIn March 2026 accessiBe Inc. filed a declaration on its citizenship in response to a court order, and the plaintiffs pointed to a February–March 2026 decision in a similar class action against the overlay vendor UserWay, Inc. (No. 24-cv-844). The parties filed a proposed case management plan on May 29, 2026, a plan was entered on June 11, and on June 25, 2026 accessiBe Inc. answered the amended complaint. The docket, last updated October 9, 2026, shows no settlement, class certification or judgment; these summaries come from commercial and nonprofit docket mirrors, which may lag the court's own system, and a third party's September 2026 review of the docket also found no final judgment. ^{1 2 3 4}