California Unruh Act: Website Accessibility Risk Explained

If your website serves customers in California, this law matters even when your company is based somewhere else. This article explains what the statute says, where the risk is real, where the law is still unsettled, and what to do now. For an overview of US rules, see our US compliance page.

What the Unruh Act says

The Unruh Civil Rights Act is California Civil Code §51. It states that all persons within the jurisdiction of California are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever, regardless of, among other characteristics, disability.

The money comes from §52(a). A business that denies those rights, or makes a distinction contrary to §51, is liable for each and every offense for actual damages, up to three times the actual damages as determined by a jury or a court, but in no case less than $4,000. Attorney’s fees can be added on top. The $4,000 floor applies even when a plaintiff’s actual losses are small.

The statute does not define what a separate offense looks like on a website, and we did not find a reliable source that does. Treat the per-offense math as a question for counsel, not something to estimate yourself.

How an ADA problem becomes an Unruh claim

Under §51(f), a violation of the federal ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Act. That link is the route California plaintiffs use in many website cases. Federal Title III is much less generous on its own. A private plaintiff can obtain an injunction and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §12188 and §12205, but not damages. Unruh adds the damages floor.

Federal enforcement is a separate track. The Department of Justice can seek civil penalties in public-interest enforcement. The inflation-adjusted maximums in 28 CFR 85.5 are $118,225 for a first violation and $236,451 for a subsequent violation. In a July 2026 notice, DOJ said its penalty amounts would not increase for 2026.

Who is exposed: a physical place, online only, or out of state

The most important recent limit comes from a California appeals court. In Martinez v. Cot’n Wash (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, the court held that the websites of a purely digital business, with no physical place open to the public, are not covered by the ADA route in §51(f). The court also held that a claim under §51(b) requires intentional discrimination. Disparate impact from an inaccessible site, even with inaction after a demand letter, may be relevant to intent but does not establish it alone. The California Supreme Court denied review in November 2022.

That splits California businesses into three groups:

• Businesses with a physical place in California open to the public, such as a store, clinic, office or event venue. Commentators most often treat these hybrid businesses as exposed, because the ADA route remains open to them.
• Online-only businesses. Martinez weakens the §51(f) route. A §51(b) claim is still possible, but it requires proof of intentional discrimination, which is harder to show.
• Out-of-state businesses selling to Californians. The statute reaches “all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” but how far that reaches for a website run from outside California depends on the facts and on case law we did not fully review. Treat it as an open question, not a safe harbor.

A court decision does not make a site safe. Martinez narrows one route, the law can change, and the facts of each case decide the outcome.

Other California rules: the Disabled Persons Act, §55.56 and AB 2190

The California Disabled Persons Act (Civil Code §54.3) sets a $1,000 minimum per offense for denying or interfering with a disabled person’s admittance to or enjoyment of public facilities, and allows attorney’s fees. Whether it reaches a website, as opposed to a physical facility, is a question for counsel. This article does not rely on it for any risk estimate.

Civil Code §55.56 is different. It lowers damages for construction-related accessibility claims. A defendant that corrects all violations within 60 days of service, and shows a CASp inspection or approval conditions, faces a $1,000 minimum per offense. A small business with 25 or fewer employees on average over three years, and gross receipts under $3.5 million over three years, that corrects violations within 30 days faces a $2,000 minimum. We did not find a source that says whether these tiers apply to website-only claims. Do not assume they protect your site.

AB 2190 is a bill, not law. As introduced, it would give businesses a defense to statutory damages if they responded to a pre-suit demand with a digital accessibility report and remediation. It would also regulate vendors that build or maintain website components. Legislative tracking shows it was moved to the Assembly inactive file in May 2026 at the author’s request, and we found no Senate action. We did not confirm its status after June 2026 on the official legislative site.

Lawsuit volume and New York

Seyfarth Shaw counted 3,117 federal website-accessibility lawsuits in 2025, up from 2,452 in 2024. That count covers federal courts only and excludes state-court suits and demand letters. New York had the most federal website suits of any state, with 1,021, ahead of Florida (961) and Illinois (585).

New York matters for state law too. Law-firm summaries report that New York’s state and city human-rights laws allow damages for website claims. We have not checked those provisions against the statutes, so this article does not rely on them.

What to do now

Start with your own exposure, then fix the site. A practical sequence:

1. 1Check your California exposure. Look at analytics for California visitors and sales, and note whether you have any physical place in California open to the public. Those two facts shape your risk more than anything else in this article.
2. 2Run an automated audit. Our free audit checks your pages against more than 90 WCAG rules and returns a prioritized report. It helps you find and fix issues, but automated tools catch only part of the problems. Treat the result as a starting point.
3. 3Test by hand. Go through checkout, sign-up, contact forms and error messages using only a keyboard. Then repeat the same flows with a screen reader such as NVDA on Windows or VoiceOver on Mac and iPhone. Automated tools miss barriers these tests reveal.
4. 4Fix the high-traffic paths first. Start with checkout, login, contact forms and images that carry meaning. Check text colors with our free contrast checker. Record each fix with a date and a retest result.
5. 5Keep a dated record. Save scan reports, test notes and change logs. A dated record of what you found and what you changed is useful if a demand letter arrives.
6. 6Get counsel before you respond to a demand. A demand letter can set short deadlines. Do not ignore it, and have a California-licensed attorney review it before you reply.
7. 7Be skeptical of any single fix. No tool, widget or report makes a site compliant on its own. A widget alone is not enough. Visitors can adjust the display, but the code and content still need fixing. Our accessibility panel is more than an overlay: it is the third layer, on top of those fixes.

These steps help you find and fix WCAG issues, lower risk, and support your compliance work. They do not guarantee that a claim will not be filed.

This article is general information, not legal advice. For advice on your situation, speak with a California-licensed attorney.