Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 93, § 103): Website Accessibility Requirements and Corporate Exposure

The statute does not codify WCAG as a requirement. However, WCAG 2.1 Level AA has become the de facto benchmark in Massachusetts litigation and settlements. The NFB v. H&R Block consent decree explicitly required WCAG 2.0 AA conformance, and courts evaluating accessibility claims consistently reference WCAG as the technical standard. Organizations should treat WCAG 2.1 AA as the operational baseline for reducing Massachusetts exposure.

Civil rights actions under Massachusetts law are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under M.G.L. c. 260, § 5B. For ongoing accessibility barriers, courts may apply continuing violation theories that extend the actionable period. Organizations facing demand letters should not assume limitations periods provide protection when the alleged barriers remain present on their websites.

Potentially, yes. The statute reaches conduct that denies Massachusetts residents equal access to services. If your website serves Massachusetts customers or users, state courts may assert jurisdiction over accessibility claims. E-commerce businesses, SaaS providers, and service companies with nationwide digital reach should evaluate Massachusetts exposure regardless of physical location.

Massachusetts law provides compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs. Federal ADA Title III claims in court are limited primarily to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, without compensatory or punitive damages. This distinction makes Massachusetts state claims attractive to plaintiffs and increases settlement pressure on defendants. Organizations facing dual state and federal claims should prepare for the broader remedy exposure under state law.

No. Overlays and widgets do not remediate underlying code barriers and have been rejected as compliance evidence in litigation. The FTC fined a leading overlay provider $1 million in January 2025 for misleading compliance claims. Massachusetts plaintiffs and courts evaluate whether genuine barriers exist, not whether an overlay badge appears on the page. Organizations using overlays remain exposed to the same liability as those with no accessibility measures.

Engage legal counsel familiar with digital accessibility litigation before responding. Assess your current accessibility posture through qualified auditing, not just automated scans. Document any accessibility work already completed and develop a remediation plan for genuine barriers. Response timing, tone, and the existence of documented good faith efforts significantly influence settlement negotiations and litigation posture.

No. M.G.L. c. 93, § 103 provides a direct private right of action in Massachusetts Superior Court. Unlike employment discrimination claims under M.G.L. c. 151B, there is no administrative exhaustion requirement. Plaintiffs may file suit directly without first pursuing relief through the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination or any other agency.

The Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act, Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act. The office has authority to investigate discriminatory barriers and pursue enforcement actions. While most digital accessibility cases proceed through private litigation, Attorney General involvement can increase exposure and public attention. Organizations with significant accessibility gaps should treat AG enforcement as a distinct risk alongside private lawsuits.