April 22, 2026

By: Matthew R. Barnes

A recurring series exploring shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, membership fights, and business breakups in the Keystone State. Follow the series here.

In recent years, businesses of all sizes have faced a surge of demand letters and lawsuits alleging website and digital accessibility violations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). These threats can be financially and reputationally costly, creating immediate pressure to settle quickly or embark on protracted litigation.

But a threshold question is often overlooked: Is your website or app, standing alone, considered a “place of public accommodation” in your jurisdiction? This question is critical because, under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff can only sue a business that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. If you do not own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation as understood under Title III, you should not be subject to suit and should have grounds to dismiss the case. Courts across the country are divided on how to define a place of public accommodation. Understanding whether you own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation is thus key to your case.

The Circuit Split and Why It Matters

Whether a business owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation is straightforward when the challenged activity occurs at a brick-and-mortar store, since a physical store, by definition, is a place of public accommodation. However, courts nationwide are divided on whether websites or digital services alone qualify as places of public accommodation. Some federal circuit courts hold that standalone websites and digital services are places of public accommodation, while others require a nexus, or connection, between the website or digital service and a physical place of business.

The consequence of the split is clear: If you conduct business online without a nexus to a physical store accessible to the public, you may, depending on the jurisdiction, have grounds to dismiss the case.

Our Third Circuit Success: Standalone Websites Are Not Places of Public Accommodation

Our firm secured the first-of-its-kind dismissal in the Third Circuit’s Western District of Pennsylvania on this very issue, obtaining a ruling that an online-only business is not a place of public accommodation under Title III.

In Murphy v. Spongelle, 716 F. Supp. 3d 358 (W.D. Pa. 2024), the federal court dismissed a Title III website claim against an online-only retailer on the ground that the ADA’s definition of “public accommodation” does not extend to standalone websites unconnected to a physical place of business open to the public. The Spongelle decision provided essential clarity for e-commerce companies operating within the Third Circuit and like-minded circuits: where a business has no brick-and-mortar location open to the public, a Title III claim should fail from the outset.

We followed our win in Spongelle with another dismissal, this time in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Wilkins v. Gold N’ Diamonds, Inc., 2025 WL 257126 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025). There, too, the federal court dismissed a complaint alleging violation of Title III where the allegations failed to show the requisite nexus to a physical store open to the public.

Together, these decisions reinforce a crucial defense for online businesses in the Third Circuit and beyond, offering a roadmap for taking control of your interests when threatened by ADA Title III litigation.

Key Takeaways

When confronted with a demand letter or complaint alleging ADA Title III digital accessibility violations, resist the temptation to react reflexively or negotiate against yourself. Instead:

1. Determine whether your business has any public-facing physical locations and whether the website has a nexus to those locations’ goods or services.
2. Retain counsel to analyze whether your jurisdiction is likely to consider your website and digital services places of public accommodation in their own right, thereby subjecting you to suit under Title III.
3. Be honest about your priorities. Would you prefer to negotiate a quick and early settlement, or is your company better served by investing in litigation and obtaining a final judgment on the merits? This may be especially attractive where your company has become a frequent target of these lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions.

Conclusion

A business has every reason to accommodate its customers, regardless of disability status, and the ADA is designed to promote that worthy aim. However, each business is entitled to defend itself against litigation that should not be brought against it in the first place. Before reacting to Title III demands or threatened litigation, engage counsel to protect your legal and business interests.

If you are facing or anticipating litigation under Title III of the ADA, contact the attorneys at Pietragallo for a consultation. We advise and advocate for clients across the country facing Title III demands and claims, and have extensive experience resolving these matters through litigation and negotiation.

Matthew R. Barnes can be reached by email at mrb@pietragallo.com or by phone at 412-263-1842.