Minnesota Website Accessibility Requirements Under § 16E.03 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act
Minnesota website accessibility requirements apply to state agencies through Minnesota Statutes § 16E.03 and to private businesses through the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). State agencies must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA under the State Chief Information Officer’s standards. Private-sector businesses face exposure under the MHRA’s public accommodations provisions, which courts have interpreted to cover websites. Minnesota ranked third nationally for federal website accessibility lawsuit filings in 2024, with 114 cases.
What Is Minnesota Statutes § 16E.03?
Minnesota Statutes § 16E.03, Subdivision 9, requires all state agencies to adhere to accessibility standards developed by the State Chief Information Officer. Those standards must incorporate Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The law applies to executive branch agencies and extends to technology procured, developed, or substantially modified by covered entities.
Separate statutes create private rights of action with statutory damages. Section 363A.42 addresses public records accessibility. Section 363A.43 covers continuing education. Both carry $500 per violation penalties. For private businesses, the MHRA prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, which Minnesota federal courts have held includes websites offering goods and services.
How to Reduce Minnesota Website Accessibility Exposure
Accessibility.Works reduces Minnesota exposure through senior-led audits that identify barriers automated tools miss. Every audit is performed by experienced practitioners using real assistive technology. There are no junior testers, no handoffs, and no dilution of expertise.
Our hybrid process combines automated scanning for coverage with manual testing that catches the failures tools cannot detect. The report is the product. We invest significant time validating findings, removing false positives, and documenting issues with evidence, context, and remediation guidance developers can act on without translation.
Validation is included, not an add-on. We verify fixes against original findings and document closure. This creates the defensible evidence trail that improves settlement posture and demonstrates good faith to courts evaluating whether an organization took accessibility seriously before litigation arrived.
Who Minnesota Digital Accessibility Laws Apply To
Section 16E.03 applies to executive branch state agencies. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is covered for specific provisions. Legislative, judicial, and non-executive bodies are encouraged but not mandated to follow the standard.
Sections 363A.42 and 363A.43 apply to public entities including state government, political subdivisions, cities, counties, school districts, the University of Minnesota, and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. These statutes create individual rights to request accessible public records and continuing education materials.
The MHRA’s public accommodations provisions apply to private businesses offering goods or services to the public in Minnesota. A February 2025 federal court decision held that a stand-alone retail website qualifies as a place of public accommodation under both the ADA and MHRA, even without a physical nexus.
Common Minnesota Website Accessibility Risk Triggers
- Websites incompatible with screen readers due to missing alternative text, unlabeled form fields, or inaccessible navigation.
- PDF documents and public records published without accessible formatting, triggering § 363A.42 exposure.
- E-commerce sites with checkout flows that cannot be completed using keyboard navigation or assistive technology.
- Continuing education or professional development materials administered by the state that lack accessible formats.
- Third-party components and plugins that introduce accessibility barriers the organization did not independently test.
Minnesota Website Accessibility Enforcement and Lawsuit Trends
Minnesota recorded 114 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2024, ranking third nationally behind New York and Florida. The Eighth Circuit has not ruled on whether websites are places of public accommodation under ADA Title III, but district courts in Minnesota have sided with plaintiffs.
The February 2025 Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company decision rejected the defendant’s argument that websites are not covered by the ADA. The court held that stand-alone websites qualify as places of public accommodation. This decision may encourage additional filings in Minnesota and the broader Eighth Circuit.
State enforcement operates differently. Sections 363A.42 and 363A.43 create individual rights of action rather than agency enforcement. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigates MHRA charges, but most website accessibility cases proceed as private federal lawsuits.
Minnesota Accessibility Penalties, Attorney's Fees, and Settlement Exposure
Sections 363A.42 and 363A.43 impose $500 per violation plus attorney fees and costs. Total penalties to any individual or class are capped at $15,000 regardless of the number of violations. Attorney fees in class actions are also capped at $15,000.
The MHRA provides broader remedies. Following August 2024 amendments, juries may award unlimited punitive damages in discrimination cases. The previous $25,000 cap was removed. Courts may order compensatory damages up to three times actual damages. Civil penalties payable to the state may also be imposed.
Federal ADA claims filed in Minnesota seek injunctive relief requiring website accessibility. Settlement costs include remediation expenses, plaintiff attorney fees, and monitoring provisions. Serial plaintiffs have filed multiple cases against Minnesota-based retailers.
WCAG Benchmarks Used in Minnesota Website Accessibility Cases
Minnesota’s State Digital Accessibility Standard requires WCAG 2.1 Level AA as of July 1, 2024. The standard also incorporates Section 508 provisions. State agencies must meet these benchmarks for technology procured, developed, or substantially modified after the effective date.
Private-sector litigation references WCAG as the technical benchmark in complaints and settlement agreements. The DOJ’s 2024 Title II rule requires state and local governments to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with deadlines based on population size. Larger entities must comply by April 2026; smaller entities by April 2027.
WCAG 2.1 added 17 success criteria beyond WCAG 2.0, including requirements for users with cognitive disabilities, low vision, and mobile device users. Organizations previously aligned to WCAG 2.0 should audit against the additional criteria.
Common Misconceptions About Minnesota Website Accessibility Compliance
The MHRA’s public accommodations provisions apply to private businesses. Federal courts in Minnesota have held that websites are places of public accommodation under both the ADA and state law.
Overlays do not fix underlying code issues. Minnesota settlements and federal cases increasingly target sites using overlays, as automated tools cannot address all WCAG failures.
Serial plaintiffs file against businesses of all sizes. E-commerce sites with checkout barriers are common targets regardless of company revenue.
That cap applies only to the specific public records statute. MHRA claims and federal ADA claims are not subject to the same ceiling, and attorney fees often exceed statutory damages.
What Good Faith Looks Like Under Minnesota Law for Websites
Good faith means demonstrable, ongoing effort rather than stated intention. Courts and plaintiffs evaluate whether an organization has taken concrete steps before litigation.
Evidence includes a written accessibility policy, an audit by qualified testers using assistive technology, a remediation plan with timelines, and validation confirming fixes. Organizations showing this progression are better positioned to negotiate favorable settlements or defend claims.
Good faith does not mean perfection. Complex sites will have residual issues. What matters is whether the organization has a program to identify, prioritize, and resolve barriers over time. Single-point fixes without ongoing monitoring undermine a good faith posture because websites change continuously.
What Courts and Agencies Look For in Minnesota Website Accessibility Cases
- Documented accessibility policy and stated commitment to WCAG conformance demonstrate organizational awareness.
- Third-party audit reports showing testing was performed and issues were identified before litigation.
- Remediation roadmap with timelines and evidence that high-priority barriers were addressed.
- Validated fixes confirming that remediation resolved the originally identified issues.
- Ongoing monitoring or recurring testing demonstrating accessibility is treated as a continuous program.
Minnesota Website Accessibility FAQs
Minnesota does not have a private-sector website accessibility statute, but the MHRA prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. Federal courts in Minnesota have held that websites qualify as public accommodations under the ADA and MHRA. Private businesses face litigation exposure even without a specific state mandate.
Minnesota’s State Digital Accessibility Standard requires WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance as of July 1, 2024. The standard also incorporates Section 508 provisions. State agencies must apply this standard to technology they procure, develop, or substantially modify.
Section 363A.42 imposes $500 per violation plus attorney fees and costs. Total penalties to any individual or class are capped at $15,000. Actions must be commenced within one year of the alleged violation. The statute applies to records modified or produced after January 1, 2013.
Yes. The MHRA provides a private right of action for discrimination in places of public accommodation. Following August 2024 amendments, remedies include compensatory damages up to three times actual damages, unlimited punitive damages, and attorney fees. Individuals may also file charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
Minnesota ranked third nationally for federal website accessibility lawsuit filings in 2024 with 114 cases, behind New York and Florida. The state’s position in the Eighth Circuit, which has not ruled on website coverage, and the plaintiff-friendly February 2025 Lion Brand decision may encourage additional filings.
No. Overlays do not address underlying code issues and cannot make all content accessible. Plaintiffs have successfully sued websites using overlays. The State of Minnesota’s accessibility guidance does not endorse overlays as a compliance mechanism.
The DOJ’s 2024 Title II web accessibility rule requires state and local government websites to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Entities with populations of 50,000 or more must comply by April 24, 2026. Smaller entities and special districts must comply by April 26, 2027.
Yes. Minnesota’s accessibility standard applies to technology procured by state agencies. The state requires agencies to include accessibility requirements in contracts. Vendor certification and accessibility conformance reports are increasingly common in public-sector procurement. Vendors unable to demonstrate conformance face bid disqualification.
Recent Minnesota Website Accessibility Lawsuits and Enforcement Actions
2024–2025
Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company
- Plaintiff / Agency
- Clarence Frost and Tammy Frost
- Defendant
- Lion Brand Yarn Company
- Venue & Jurisdiction
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (Case No. 0:24-cv-00950)
- Allegations
- Plaintiffs alleged the retail website was not compatible with screen readers, denying blind users access to goods and services in violation of ADA Title III and the MHRA.
- Status / Outcome
- Motion to dismiss denied February 6, 2025. Court held stand-alone websites are places of public accommodation. Case pending.
- Remedies / Payment
- Not publicly disclosed.
- Why It Matters
- First published Minnesota federal decision holding web-only businesses subject to ADA Title III. May increase Eighth Circuit filings.
2023–2024
Dalton v. Christopher & Banks Corp.
- Plaintiff / Agency
- Julie Dalton
- Defendant
- Christopher & Banks Corporation
- Venue & Jurisdiction
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (Case No. 0:23-cv-03742)
- Allegations
- Plaintiff alleged the retailer's website contained barriers preventing screen reader users from accessing product information and completing purchases, violating ADA Title III and the MHRA.
- Status / Outcome
- Voluntarily dismissed January 2024.
- Remedies / Payment
- Not publicly disclosed.
- Why It Matters
- Voluntary dismissal may indicate settlement. The same plaintiff has filed similar cases against other retailers, demonstrating serial litigation activity.
2023
McCourt v. Minnesota Republican Party
- Plaintiff / Agency
- Noah J. McCourt
- Defendant
- Minnesota Republican Party
- Venue & Jurisdiction
- Federal court, Minnesota
- Allegations
- Plaintiff alleged the political party's website was not navigable using standard input methods and did not meet WCAG 2.0 standards.
- Status / Outcome
- Dismissed without prejudice after plaintiff failed to respond to court and missed filing deadlines.
- Remedies / Payment
- None.
- Why It Matters
- Procedural dismissal does not resolve underlying accessibility questions. Political organizations remain potential targets.
2023
Dalton v. Target Corporation
- Plaintiff / Agency
- Julie Dalton
- Defendant
- Target Corporation
- Venue & Jurisdiction
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
- Allegations
- Plaintiff alleged Target's website was not accessible to users who are blind, preventing independent use of screen readers.
- Status / Outcome
- Case status requires PACER verification.
- Remedies / Payment
- Not publicly disclosed.
- Why It Matters
- Major Minnesota-headquartered retailers face home-state filing exposure. Target has previously settled accessibility claims.
2023–2024
Serial plaintiff activity in Minnesota federal court
- Plaintiff / Agency
- Multiple repeat plaintiffs including Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, and Julie Dalton
- Defendant
- Various retailers with e-commerce websites
- Venue & Jurisdiction
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
- Allegations
- Pattern of claims alleging inaccessible websites prevent screen reader users from shopping independently.
- Status / Outcome
- Mix of pending cases, settlements, and dismissals.
- Remedies / Payment
- Varies; most settlement terms not publicly disclosed.
- Why It Matters
- Serial plaintiffs drive volume in Minnesota. E-commerce sites accessible to Minnesota residents should treat these filings as foreseeable risk.
2024–2026
DOJ Title II compliance deadlines
- Plaintiff / Agency
- U.S. Department of Justice
- Defendant
- Minnesota state and local government entities
- Venue & Jurisdiction
- Federal administrative enforcement
- Allegations
- DOJ Title II rule requires government websites and apps to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 2026 (larger entities) or April 2027 (smaller entities).
- Status / Outcome
- Compliance deadlines approaching. Enforcement anticipated after deadline.
- Remedies / Payment
- Injunctive relief and civil penalties under Title II.
- Why It Matters
- Minnesota public entities face dual exposure under state and federal law. Vendors selling to government must also meet requirements.