Sweetgreen
Sweetgreen settled in 2016. Eight years later, they got sued for the exact same thing.
In 2016, a blind customer sued the salad chain Sweetgreen because the website wasn't usable with a screen reader. Sweetgreen settled and agreed to make their site WCAG 2.0 AA compliant. Most people assumed that was the end of it — they paid, they fixed it, done.
It wasn't done. In January 2024, Sweetgreen was sued again in New York federal court for the exact same kinds of violations. The site had drifted out of compliance over the years as developers added features without thinking about accessibility. They settled again in May 2024. The lesson: a one-time fix is not enough. Without ongoing maintenance, you'll be sued twice for the same thing.
Court
Southern District of New York
Case
Farmer v. Sweetgreen, Inc.
1:16-cv-02103
Outcome
Settled — Sweetgreen required to remediate website and app to WCAG 2.0 AA by March 31, 2017; monetary terms confidential
What went wrong on the site
Each visual below shows what visitors with disabilities actually experienced.
<div onClick="buy()">
<div>Buy now</div>
</div>
Custom controls had no ARIA roles, so screen readers could not announce what they were or what state they were in.
WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value
Click only — Tab key does nothing
Core interactions required a mouse. Keyboard-only users could not navigate menus, complete checkout, or operate widgets.
WCAG 2.1.1 Keyboard
Screen reader announces:
"Image. Image. Image."
Product images and key visuals had no alt text — screen readers announced 'image' or the file name instead of describing what users were looking at.
WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content
Sources & documentation
Is your site exposed like Sweetgreen's was?
Run a free scan to find out which of these violations exist on your site right now.
Scan my siteAll Restaurants cases
See the full restaurants risk landscape
Other cases, top WCAG failures for restaurants, and what to fix first.
More B2C cases
Retail / E-commerce
Target Corporation
First major e-commerce ADA settlement in U.S. history; established that commercial websites are covered by ADA and class-action exposure is real — Target paid $6M+ in 2008.
Retail / E-commerce
Fashion Nova
Largest disclosed ADA web accessibility class settlement in recent years at $5.15M — and the DOJ intervened in 2026 to argue even this wasn't enough, signaling elevated federal scrutiny.
Streaming
Netflix
Established that the ADA applies to web-only businesses with no physical stores; Netflix paid $795k in fees/monitoring and committed to 100% captioning of its entire streaming library.