DOJ and H&R Block (2014): What the Consent Decree Required

The March 2014 H&R Block consent decree is a useful example of a DOJ-backed, case-specific accessibility resolution. It specified WCAG 2.0 Level AA, third-party review, governance, training, reporting, and monetary terms for the parties. It did not create a binding nationwide rule for private ecommerce, predict another case's outcome, or establish a standard settlement amount.

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 in that matter.

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 term mattered

The decree identified a specific technical version and conformance level for the covered H&R Block surfaces. That gave the parties an auditable target and illustrates why a remediation program should state its standard, version, scope, exclusions, evaluation methods, and timeline precisely.

Other DOJ resolutions and federal accessibility frameworks have also referenced WCAG, but each source has its own legal authority and scope. For example, rules governing state and local governments under ADA Title II are not automatically the rules for a private ecommerce service under Title III. Check the current primary source that applies rather than deriving a universal requirement from this decree.

How H&R Block compares to NFB v Target

The 2008 NFB v Target settlement and the 2014 H&R Block consent decree involved different parties, courts, remedies, and technical terms. The comparison below is descriptive; neither negotiated resolution establishes a universal template or predicted amount for another merchant.

Practical Shopify lessons

1. Name the engineering target and scope

Choose the WCAG version and level appropriate to the program, then state which storefront pages, customer-account flows, embedded apps, documents, media, viewports, and interaction states were evaluated. A version label without scope is not a conformance result.

2. Combine tools, people, and ownership

The decree used multiple controls rather than one scanner. A merchant program can similarly combine automated checks, manual keyboard and assistive-technology testing, a named owner, staff training, a barrier-reporting channel, and documented follow-up. The appropriate audit cadence depends on change rate, obligations, and risk; it cannot be copied from one consent decree.

3. Keep case amounts in context

The damages and civil penalty were negotiated for this matter. They are not a typical Shopify settlement range, an inflation calculator for a future case, or a prediction of another merchant's exposure. Current penalties and remedies depend on the enforcing authority, statute, jurisdiction, facts, and procedural posture; ask counsel about the current primary law.

4. Keep evidence factual

AccessComply can retain scoped automated-scan and supported-change records. Those records can help a team understand work performed, but they do not prove historical accessibility, replace an independent manual audit, create a legal defense, or guarantee a regulator or court outcome.

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 press release on H&R Block consent decree
• 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