Customer website cases: the decisions are site-specific

analysisIn Erkan v. David A. Hidalgo, M.D., P.C., the court dismissed the case in January 2025 for lack of standing and mootness. The decision considered a developer’s audit, manual changes, an accessibility widget and ongoing monitoring. accessiBe’s own account presented the result as validation of accessWidget. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

qualification

The judgment does not name accessiBe or accessWidget and does not certify a branded product. The broader remediation record, rather than the widget alone, supported the mootness analysis. The company’s claim that no customer lost because of its widget is narrower than, and not disproved merely by, a denied dismissal motion.

response

The company credits its tool and litigation-support team; its marketing account remains distinct from what the judgment actually says.

outcome

The customer won dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; there was no trial determination of universal widget compliance.

analysisIn Velazquez v. The Spice & Tea Exchange Distribution, the December 2024 court rejected the client’s attempt to obtain dismissal on mootness grounds. The cited accessiBe report lacked the auditor’s qualifications, methodology and reasons supporting its compliance conclusion. ^{1 2}

qualification

accessiBe was not a party. This decision concerns the submitted proof and procedural burden in one client’s case, not a general damages judgment against the vendor.

analysisIn Batista v. PhotonLight.com, the October 2024 court found that an accessiBe audit submitted by the defendant concerned genopalate.com, not the defendant’s website. It was therefore irrelevant to the alleged barriers and insufficient to obtain dismissal. ^{1 2}

qualification

accessiBe was not a party. The wrong-site submission does not, by itself, establish whether the vendor generated the wrong document or the litigant submitted it.

analysisIn Angeles v. Grace Products, the September 2021 court declined to find the accessibility claim moot. The defendant relied on accessiBe consulting and audits, while the plaintiff’s expert described continuing barriers and a deficient report. ^{1 2}

qualification

The court held that the defendant had not met the demanding mootness burden. It did not decide every product claim or impose liability on nonparty accessiBe.

analysisOther retained docket entries connect accessiBe-related materials to customer litigation involving Urbani Truffles, SoulFlora, DL1961, American Dental Associates, Exit 9 Brooklyn, Buffalo Jackson, Pure Green, U.S. Wings and Lemongrass Holdings. Urbani Truffles sought a summons to accessiBe Inc. on a third-party claim, while DL1961 filed declarations by Shir Ekerling. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

qualification

These are individually identified procedural or product-reference records, often snippets rather than complete case files. They do not establish outcomes, causal effects of the widget or the vendor’s liability. Similar counsel names do not prove a vendor-funded defense arrangement.

analysisEarly accounts describe accessibility allegations at UprightPose, Dorai Home, Eyebobs and Masterbuilt. A 2021 news account reports that Masterbuilt’s case settled and was voluntarily dismissed; a later critical account describes an Eyebobs settlement requiring organizational accessibility measures. ^{1 2}

qualification

The settlement agreements and all pleadings are not retained here. Settlement is not a merits judgment, and accessiBe was not the defendant in those customer cases.

response

accessiBe denied that Eyebobs and Masterbuilt used its product at the disputed times. Later, accessiBe said Eyebobs declined support, while Eyebobs said its requests for meetings went unanswered and it had stopped using accessiBe.

analysisThe retained Litigation Pledge states that it ceased to be available for new accessWidget licenses from 15 July 2026, while eligible earlier licenses remained covered. Covered damages depend on specified final-court-decision conditions. Customer settlements and their legal fees are excluded from covered damages under the quoted settlement provision. ¹

qualification

The terms also constrain settlements made without the company’s consent and call for confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. These are contractual provisions; their enforcement in a particular customer dispute is not established.