Federal Court Denies Wayfair's Motion to Dismiss Website Accessibility Lawsuit

On October 16, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss filed by Wayfair, LLC in an accessibility lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The action was originally brought by a legally blind individual who relies on screen-reading software. The plaintiff alleged that Wayfair's website remained inaccessible and incompatible with screen readers, preventing navigation. The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action requesting that Wayfair implement the technical modifications and corporate policies required to make its digital platform accessible to blind users, as well as provide annual compliance reports directly to the plaintiff.

Wayfair's Jurisdictional Challenge

Wayfair moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The retailer argued that the lawsuit was moot because of an earlier consent decree entered in a separate case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cromitie v. Wayfair, Inc.). Wayfair asserted that this separate consent decree stripped the Pennsylvania court of jurisdiction over ADA claims concerning its website.

In support of its motion, Wayfair cited the Third Circuit decision A.P. Boyd, Inc. v. Newark Public Schools, arguing that earlier developments removed the plaintiff's personal stake in the controversy.

The Court's Ruling

The court rejected Wayfair’s argument, finding that A.P. Boyd was inapplicable because that precedent addressed developments occurring within the same litigation, not independent actions initiated by non-parties.

Guided by the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC, the court highlighted key reasons why the prior consent decree did not render this case moot:

• Lack of Proof of Remediation: Wayfair presented no evidence showing that its website had actually been remediated to eliminate the barriers.
• Enforcement Rights: The plaintiff in this Pennsylvania lawsuit was not a party to the New York consent decree and has no legal authority to enforce its terms.
• Distinct Relief Requested: The plaintiff here sought specific remedies not covered by the prior decree, including a faster response, corporate accessibility strategies, and annual reporting delivered directly to the plaintiff.

Finding that a live controversy remains regarding the accessibility of Wayfair's platform, the court ruled it retains subject matter jurisdiction.

Wayfair was ordered to file an answer to the complaint on or before October 31, 2025.

For more details, see the original court order.