Florida Federal Court Dismisses Website Accessibility Lawsuit Against Pizza Chain for Lack of Standing

On February 27, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed without prejudice an accessibility lawsuit brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Prince St. Pizza LLC (doing business as Prince Street Pizza).

The action was dismissed sua sponte after the court examined the initial complaint and determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of Article III standing.

The Nexus and Tester Claims

The plaintiff, a visually impaired individual who also identified as an accessibility tester, claimed that the defendant's commercial website contained digital barriers preventing screen-reading software from operating properly. The complaint asserted two counts: violation of Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–89) and common law trespass.

To establish an ADA claim in the Eleventh Circuit, a plaintiff challenging digital barriers must demonstrate a connection—or nexus—between the website's barriers and their ability to access or benefit from the goods and services offered at the business's physical locations. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that they:

• Attempted to purchase a meal on the website;
• Sought to research business hours, pricing, and locations prior to visiting physical restaurants;
• Regularly traveled near the physical premises; and
• Alternatively visited the site in their capacity as a civil rights tester.

Failure to Establish Article III Standing

In reviewing its jurisdiction, the court evaluated whether the plaintiff established an "injury-in-fact" that was concrete, particularized, and showed a real and immediate threat of future injury required for injunctive relief.

The court found that the plaintiff's assertions were generic and conclusory. Specifically, the court highlighted that the plaintiff offered no concrete details about past attempts to patronize the defendant's physical restaurants, nor did they explain what specific barriers prevented physical access beyond the general statement that they could not order online or view store details.

Furthermore, the court analyzed the four non-dispositive factors established by the Eleventh Circuit in Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc.:

1. The proximity of the business to the plaintiff's residence;
2. Past patronage of the business;
3. The definiteness of the plan to return; and
4. The frequency of travel near the business.

The court determined that the complaint’s vague references to plans to return "in the near future" resembled the indefinite "some day" intentions previously rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. The court also observed that pleading tester status in the alternative undermined the asserted intention to visit the physical locations, as the complaint failed to establish how the plaintiff had engaged with the underlying activity being tested.

Deadline to Amend

Because standing is a constitutional prerequisite under Article III, the court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the trespass claim.

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that properly establishes federal jurisdiction on or before March 16, 2026. If the plaintiff fails to amend by that date, the action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Additional details regarding the decision can be reviewed in the court's official case record.