DOJ v H&R Block (2014): The Federal Settlement That Made WCAG 2.0 AA the Operative Standard

The DOJ + NAD + NFB consent decree against H&R Block in March 2014 is the federal moment that made WCAG 2.0 Level AA the de-facto ADA Title III website-accessibility standard. Every U.S. Department of Justice ADA web-accessibility settlement since 2014 has used the same framework: WCAG 2.0 (or, more recently, 2.1) Level AA conformance, annual third-party audits, designated coordinator, staff training. Plaintiff law firms cite it. Defense counsel reference it. DOJ's 2023 Title II rulemaking on state and local government websites referenced it. For Shopify merchants, it is the most important federal pre-Robles settlement to understand.

The procedural history

The case was filed in March 2013 in the District of Massachusetts (1:13-cv-10799-GAO) by the National Federation of the Blind and two blind plaintiffs, Mika Pyyhkala and Lindsay Yazzolino. They alleged that H&R Block's online tax-preparation website (hrblock.com) and mobile applications were inaccessible to screen-reader users in violation of ADA Title III and applicable state laws.

Eight months later, in November 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint-in-intervention — joining the private suit as a party and asserting the United States' interest in enforcing ADA Title III. DOJ intervention is rare; it signals that the federal government views the underlying issue as nationally important.

In March 2014, four months after DOJ's intervention, the parties entered a consent decree resolving the case.

What the consent decree required

The decree's substantive obligations:

Technical conformance

H&R Block was required to bring its website and mobile applications into conformance with WCAG 2.0 Level AA by January 1, 2015 — in time for the 2015 tax-filing season. Subsequent updates to either the website or apps had to launch already conforming.

Annual third-party audits

H&R Block agreed to retain an independent third-party accessibility consultant to conduct annual audits of the website and apps and to remediate any non-conformance found.

Web Accessibility Coordinator

H&R Block agreed to designate a Web Accessibility Coordinator with documented responsibility for ongoing accessibility, accessibility user testing, and incident response.

Staff training

Relevant H&R Block staff (web developers, designers, content authors, customer-service representatives) were required to receive accessibility training.

Compensation

• $100,000 in damages to the two named plaintiffs ($45,000 each in compensatory damages plus $10,000 for emotional distress).
• $55,000 civil penalty payable to the United States for the ADA violations (the maximum penalty under Title III for a first violation at the time was $75,000).

Ongoing reporting

H&R Block was required to submit annual compliance reports to DOJ throughout the decree term.

Why the WCAG 2.0 AA adoption mattered

Before the H&R Block consent decree, DOJ had repeatedly stated that "the Department considers WCAG... an appropriate benchmark" but had not formally tied a settlement to a specific version and conformance level. The H&R Block decree pinned both: WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

That pin reverberated through every subsequent federal action. DOJ's settlements with edX (April 2015), Peapod (November 2014), and dozens of others since used WCAG 2.0 (or 2.1) Level AA as the technical standard. State attorneys general adopted the same baseline. Plaintiff complaints standardized on WCAG 2.0 (and later 2.1) Level AA. The Section 508 refresh in 2017 incorporated WCAG 2.0 Level AA by reference as the federal-procurement accessibility standard.

When Robles v Domino's reached the Ninth Circuit in 2019 and the court declined to require any specific technical standard, the operative industry assumption — derived directly from H&R Block — was that WCAG 2.0 (or 2.1) Level AA was the right target. Defendants who remediated to that standard found judges receptive; defendants who pointed to other standards or to no standard found judges much less so.

How H&R Block compares to NFB v Target

The 2008 NFB v Target settlement was the first major class-action ADA web-accessibility settlement, with a $6 million class fund plus injunctive relief. H&R Block, six years later, was the first DOJ-led federal settlement and the first to formally adopt WCAG 2.0 Level AA. They are complementary precedents: NFB v Target established the private-class-action template; H&R Block established the federal-government technical-standard template.

What the H&R Block decree means for Shopify merchants

1. WCAG 2.1 AA is the operating target, not "industry best practice"

The H&R Block decree pinned WCAG 2.0 Level AA in 2014. The current operating target — referenced by DOJ, state AGs, the EU Accessibility Act's harmonized standard EN 301 549 v3.2.1, and most plaintiff complaints — is WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Treat 2.1 AA as the floor for every storefront, customer-account flow, and embedded app.

2. The H&R Block "stack" is the audit checklist

The decree's five-pillar framework — conformance + annual third-party audit + designated coordinator + staff training + compensation if breached — is the de-facto template for any well-run accessibility program. Shopify merchants should be able to answer for each pillar:

• Conformance: What's our last AccessComply scan compliance score?
• Audit: Have we engaged a third-party auditor in the past 12 months?
• Coordinator: Who on the team owns accessibility?
• Training: Did the developer who shipped last week's theme update know WCAG 2.1 AA?
• Compensation: Do we have an accessibility statement with a documented escalation path for users who hit a barrier?

A "no" or "I don't know" on any of these is a risk signal.

3. The civil-penalty exposure is real

H&R Block paid $55,000 in civil penalties on top of plaintiff damages. Title III civil penalties were raised to up to $96,384 for a first violation and $192,768 for subsequent violations under the 2024 federal civil-penalty inflation adjustments. The H&R Block-style $55K penalty would be over $90K today. Add plaintiff damages, plaintiff attorneys' fees, defense attorneys' fees, the cost of remediation, and the executive distraction, and the all-in cost of an ADA web-accessibility action against a small Shopify merchant routinely exceeds $50,000–$250,000 even before any judgment.

Active remediation — running scans, fixing source code, publishing an accessibility statement, monitoring continuously — is the only economically sensible position.

4. DOJ intervention signals risk concentration

DOJ has limited resources for Title III intervention. They concentrate on (a) industries with broad consumer reach, (b) repeat complainants, (c) high-stakes services (taxation, healthcare, financial services), and (d) issues with clear federal-policy interest. Shopify merchants in fintech, healthcare, or government-adjacent verticals are at higher risk of DOJ attention than a typical apparel store. The remediation answer is the same; the urgency is higher.

Further reading

• DOJ Press Release: Justice Department enters consent decree with H&R Block (March 2014)
• Consent decree, NFB et al. v H&R Block, 1:13-cv-10799-GAO (D. Mass.)
• DOJ Title II final rule (April 2024) — incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA for state and local government websites
• 42 U.S.C. § 12181 — ADA Title III definitions
• WCAG 2.1 AA full success-criteria list
• AccessComply: NFB v Target — first major class-action settlement
• AccessComply: Robles v Domino's — the Ninth Circuit foundational ruling
• AccessComply: NAD v Netflix — online-only services and ADA Title III