In Massachusetts, your website can be sued under the ADA even if you have no physical store. The First Circuit — the federal appeals court covering Massachusetts — has held that a “place of public accommodation” is not limited to physical buildings. That single rule makes the state’s online-only businesses more exposed than businesses in much of the country.

The one rule that defines Massachusetts: no physical nexus required

Most ADA website analysis turns on one question: does the law reach a website that isn’t tied to a brick-and-mortar store? Massachusetts answered that early and broadly. In Carparts Distribution Center v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994), the First Circuit held that “public accommodations” under Title III are not limited to actual physical structures, reasoning that categories like travel and insurance services in the statute have never required a customer to walk through a door.

That ruling predates the modern web, but it shapes every Massachusetts website case. The First Circuit sits in the plaintiff-favorable camp of a national split: the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits read Title III broadly enough to potentially cover online-only businesses, while the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits generally require a “nexus” to a physical place (ABA, Digital Accessibility Under Title III). For a Massachusetts ecommerce store, SaaS app, or content site with no storefront, that means the “we’re online-only, so the ADA doesn’t apply” defense that works in California’s Ninth Circuit is far weaker here.

This page is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a qualified Massachusetts attorney.

Massachusetts state law adds a second front

A Massachusetts plaintiff rarely relies on the federal ADA alone. Two state statutes give them additional leverage:

  • M.G.L. c. 272 §98 prohibits discrimination on account of “deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability” in places of public accommodation. A violation carries a criminal fine up to $2,500, civil liability for the damages “enumerated in section five of chapter one hundred and fifty-one B,” and a minimum civil forfeiture of $300 (M.G.L. c. 272 §98).
  • M.G.L. c. 93 §103, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, gives people with disabilities a private right of action for compensatory and exemplary (punitive) damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees (M.G.L. c. 93 §103).

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) enforces the public-accommodation law, and a §98 complaint generally must be filed within 300 days of the discriminatory act. The practical takeaway: unlike the flat statutory damages that drive California’s Unruh Act suits, the Massachusetts hook is fee-shifting plus exemplary damages — the leverage that pushes defendants to settle even small cases.

Massachusetts is also a national leader in state digital accessibility

Here’s the wrinkle that makes Massachusetts unmistakable. While most states have done little on digital accessibility, the Commonwealth built formal governance. In July 2023 — on the 33rd anniversary of the ADA — Governor Healey signed Executive Order 614, creating the country’s small club of state-level Chief IT Accessibility Officer roles (filled in January 2024 by Ashley Bloom inside the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security) and a Digital Accessibility and Equity Governance Board (StateScoop).

That program governs Commonwealth state agencies, not private companies — so it does not directly regulate your business. Its relevance is signal, not statute: Massachusetts has formally adopted WCAG 2.1 Level AA as its enterprise standard, the same target the DOJ set for state and local governments in its April 24, 2024 Title II web rule. When a private case lands in front of a Massachusetts judge, the operative conformance bar is unambiguous, and “we tried” is harder to argue in a state that has institutionalized AA.

Who is getting sued in Massachusetts

Massachusetts is not the volume leader that New York or Florida is, but it is consistently in the top tier. Federal website-accessibility filings rebounded nationally in 2025 to roughly 3,100 cases — up about 27% over 2024 — and Massachusetts ranked among the most active states, with dozens of federal filings (Seyfarth ADA Title III blog; UsableNet litigation tracker).

The targets follow the national pattern, sharpened by the First Circuit’s reach:

  • Retail and ecommerce sites — the most-sued category, and especially exposed here because online-only stores can’t lean on a no-nexus defense. See our ecommerce accessibility guide.
  • Restaurants and hospitality with inaccessible online ordering or reservations.
  • Healthcare, financial services, and professional firms whose portals block screen-reader users.

The barriers cited are remarkably consistent: images with no alt text, forms a screen reader can’t complete, failing color contrast, content that can’t be reached by keyboard, and broken focus management. A plaintiff doesn’t need to prove a dollar of harm — only that the site presented a barrier.

How a Massachusetts business reduces its exposure

There is no overlay or one-line widget that makes this risk disappear — and in the First Circuit, where the threshold “does the ADA apply” defense is weakest, betting on a shortcut is especially risky. The defensible path is the same proven program, executed as real code:

  1. Audit against WCAG 2.1 AA. Start with a manual accessibility audit that combines automated scanning with a human testing by keyboard and screen reader. Automated tools alone catch only a fraction of WCAG failures — and miss exactly the unlabeled controls and bad ARIA that plaintiffs cite.
  2. Remediate by hand. This is the step overlays skip. Curbcut’s accessibility remediation changes the underlying HTML, CSS, and JavaScript so the barriers are actually gone — file by file, no widget.
  3. Document the work. Publish an accessibility statement naming your WCAG 2.1 AA target, keep your audit and remediation records, and give users a way to report problems. It isn’t legal immunity, but it evidences good-faith effort that matters under MERA’s exemplary-damages framework.
  4. Monitor for regressions. A new blog image, an untagged PDF, or a third-party booking widget can reintroduce barriers overnight. Ongoing accessibility monitoring catches them before a demand letter does.

If you’ve already received a demand letter, don’t ignore it — many resolve before suit. Loop in counsel and start remediation immediately; our notes on serial ADA plaintiffs explain how these filers operate.

The bottom line for Massachusetts

Massachusetts pairs a plaintiff-favorable federal circuit that doesn’t require a physical store with state statutes that add exemplary damages and attorney’s fees — a combination that rewards real accessibility and punishes shortcuts. The fastest way to see where you stand is a free accessibility scan; from there, [EXPERT_NAME] and the Curbcut team at [AGENCY_NAME] can audit and remediate the issues by hand so your site is defensible, not just decorated.

For primary sources, see ADA.gov, the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, the Massachusetts disability-rights overview, and WebAIM.