What is the purpose of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act?
The Unruh Act says that all persons in California are entitled to “the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”, whatever their disability, race, sex, religion or other protected trait (section 51(b)).
For websites, one sentence matters most. Section 51(f) says a violation of a person's rights under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act “shall also constitute a violation of this section”. So a website barrier that breaks the ADA also breaks California law.
The Unruh Act at a glance
- The law
- California Civil Code sections 51 and 52
- Who it covers
- Business establishments of every kind
- Link to the ADA
- Any ADA violation is also an Unruh violation (section 51(f))
- Money at stake
- At least $4,000 for each and every offense, plus attorney's fees (section 52(a))
- Website standard
- None in the statute. Courts and settlements point to WCAG.
How the Unruh Act adds to the ADA
Under Title III of the ADA, a private person who sues can get an order to fix the barrier and attorney's fees, but no money damages (42 U.S.C. section 12188). The Unruh Act adds the money. Section 52(a) makes a business liable “for each and every offense” for actual damages, up to three times actual damages, “but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000)”, plus attorney's fees.
The California Supreme Court held in Munson v. Del Taco (2009) that an Unruh claim based on an ADA violation does not need proof that the business meant to discriminate. The Court of Appeal relied on that rule again in Martinez (2022). For how federal courts read Title III for websites, see ADA Title III and websites.
| Question | ADA Title III (federal) | Unruh Act (California) |
|---|---|---|
| Money for the person who sues | None. Injunction and fees only. | At least $4,000 for each offense, up to three times actual damages, plus fees. |
| Proof of intent | Not needed. | Not needed if based on an ADA violation. Needed otherwise. |
| Website standard named | None for businesses. Justice Department points to WCAG as guidance. | None. Settlements usually point to WCAG. |
| Online-only stores | Federal courts in California require a link to a physical place (Robles, 2019), and have held that online-only businesses are not covered. | Not covered through the ADA route (Martinez, 2022). Intent must be shown. |
Stores with a shop, showroom or pickup point
If your website connects to a physical place in California, such as a shop, a showroom, a pop-up or a pickup point, assume the website is covered.
- In Robles v. Domino's Pizza (9th Cir. 2019), the federal appeals court held that the ADA applies to Domino's website and app because they connect customers to its restaurants. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
- In Thurston v. Midvale Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 2019), a blind customer could not read a restaurant's menu or book a table on its website with her screen reader. The court upheld the judgment for her under the Unruh Act, including statutory damages and an order to make the site meet WCAG 2.0.
The court in Thurston said the site was covered because it helped customers use a real place: read the menu, book a table. A Shopify store with Pickup in store or a retail location works the same way.
Online-only stores after Martinez v. Cot'n Wash
Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., August 1, 2022) is the main California case for stores with no physical place. A blind shopper sued an online-only retailer under the Unruh Act. The court decided two things:
- No ADA route. A retail website with no connection to a physical space is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III, so the claim could not rest on an ADA violation.
- Intent is needed, and ignoring a letter is not enough. Without the ADA route, the shopper had to show intentional discrimination. Telling the company about the barriers and the company not fixing them did not prove intent.
The California Supreme Court declined to review the case in November 2022. This makes online-only stores harder to sue in California, but not impossible. Federal courts in other states, such as New York, can read the ADA differently, and suits still get filed.
Do not treat Martinez as a shield
Why California website claims go to state court
In federal court in 2025, New York had 1,021 website accessibility suits, Florida 961 and Illinois 585. California had only 4 (Seyfarth Shaw, March 25, 2026). The reason is money. The ADA gives no damages, so California plaintiffs file in state court, where the Unruh Act's $4,000 minimum applies.
California also tracks these suits. Attorneys who send or serve a complaint alleging that a website is not accessible must send a copy to the California Commission on Disability Access within five business days, and report how the case ended (Civil Code section 55.32(b)).
Class actions happen too. In Alcazar v. Fashion Nova (N.D. Cal.), a proposed settlement offered $2.43 million to a California class, capped at $4,000 per household, and $2.52 million in fees. In February 2026 the Justice Department filed a statement urging the court to reject it, saying it would not make the site meaningfully more accessible (Seyfarth Shaw, February 18, 2026). Counts for every state, and the settlements we could source, are in ADA website lawsuits in numbers.
What are the requirements for website compliance with the ADA in California?
California has no technical website standard for private businesses. Claims are judged through the ADA, and the standard that comes up in practice is WCAG (the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines):
- the Thurston order required the site to meet WCAG 2.0
- the proposed Fashion Nova settlement named WCAG 2.1
- most US settlements name WCAG 2.1 AA, and WCAG 2.2 AA is the current version (see WCAG 2.2 AA explained)
California state agency websites do have a rule: Government Code section 11546.7, added by AB 434, requires state agencies to certify their sites against WCAG 2.0 AA or later. It does not apply to stores.
Bills that would change the rules
| Bill | What it would do | Status |
|---|---|---|
| AB 1757 (2023 to 2024) | Set a website standard and limit damages for website claims. | Died in 2024. |
| SB 84 (2025 to 2026) | Give small businesses 120 days to fix construction-related (physical) barriers before statutory damages. | In committee. Physical sites only, not websites. |
Today, website claims in California still run on sections 51 and 52 as they are. We check the Legislature's records when we review this page.
What to do now
- 1
Work out which route applies to you
Do you have a shop, showroom, pop-up, office or pickup point in California that the website connects to? Then the ADA route applies and intent does not matter. Online only? The intent rule from Martinez applies in state court. Either way, you can still be sued. - 2
Fix the barriers shoppers hit first
Start with the path to checkout. Work through the ADA website checklist and run the free accessibility checker on your top product pages. - 3
Publish a statement with a real contact
Say what you are fixing and how a shopper can reach you. Answer quickly and help them finish the order another way. - 4
Keep a dated record
Save scans, fixes and dates. If a claim comes, your lawyer will ask what you knew and when you fixed it. - 5
If a letter or complaint arrives, call a lawyer
Do not ignore it and do not pay or reply on your own. Our guide on what to do after an ADA demand letter lists the first steps.
How Inclusely helps
Unruh Act questions
What is the purpose of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act?
To make sure everyone in California gets full and equal service from every kind of business, whatever their disability, race, sex or other protected trait. It is California Civil Code section 51. For websites, the key part is section 51(f): any violation of the federal ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Act.
What are the requirements for website compliance with the ADA in California?
California has no website standard of its own for private businesses. Claims are judged through the ADA, and courts and settlements usually point to WCAG: the Thurston case used WCAG 2.0, and the Fashion Nova settlement named WCAG 2.1. Working toward WCAG 2.2 AA covers both. This is not legal advice.
How much are Unruh Act damages?
Civil Code section 52(a) makes a business liable for each and every offense for actual damages, up to three times actual damages, but in no case less than $4,000, plus attorney's fees. The federal ADA gives private plaintiffs no money damages, which is why website suits in California use the Unruh Act.
Does the Unruh Act apply to online-only stores?
It still applies, but it is harder to win. In Martinez v. Cot'n Wash (2022), a California appeals court held that a website with no link to a physical place is not covered by Title III of the ADA, so the plaintiff had to prove intentional discrimination, and ignoring a demand letter was not enough. Stores with a shop, showroom or pickup point face the easier ADA route.
Do I have to prove I meant to discriminate to be liable?
Not when the claim is based on an ADA violation. The California Supreme Court held in Munson v. Del Taco (2009) that an Unruh claim based on an ADA violation does not need proof of intent. A claim that is not based on the ADA does need intentional discrimination.
Is there a new California website accessibility law in 2026?
Not for private businesses. AB 1757, which would have set a website standard and limited damages, died in 2024. SB 84 (2025 to 2026) is about construction-related claims, meaning physical sites, and was still in committee on October 17, 2026. State agency websites have their own rule in Government Code section 11546.7.
What to do next
This page explains the law in general terms. It is not legal advice. For advice about your business, speak with a lawyer.