In April of this year, the compliance deadline hit. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act now requires state and local government websites to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines — WCAG 2.1 AA, for the connoisseurs. The deadline landed on the same day a design essay titled “If you’re a button, you have one job” went viral on Hacker News, racking up nearly 500 points and over 200 comments. The essay is a quiet, precise taxonomy of interface betrayal: buttons that ignore taps, controls that swallow input during animations, toggles that lie about their state.

The two events are not unrelated.

The Lawsuit Pipeline Is Now Fully Primed

ADA website lawsuits were already climbing before the Title II deadline sharpened everyone’s pencils. EcomBack’s data from the first half of 2025 showed a 37% surge in filings, and the accessible.org 2026 outlook predicts plaintiffs’ lawyers will expand aggressively into new states now that public entities have a concrete standard to be measured against. We are not talking about a few nuisance claims. We are talking about an industry — and it is an industry now — that generated thousands of filings last year and will generate more this year.

The rational response from any institution with a website and a legal department is obvious: do whatever the auditor says. Hire the compliance vendor. Run the automated scan. Fix the flagged items. Ship it. The auditor’s report becomes the shield. Whether the resulting interface is actually usable by a human being with a screen reader, a motor impairment, or a cognitive disability is a secondary question. The primary question — the one that keeps general counsel asleep at night — is whether the site passes the scan.

The Gap Between an Audit and a Human Being

Here is where the button essay becomes more than a design cri de coeur. Its central complaint is that a Nothing Phone’s photo-rotation button ignores taps during an animation — and does so with a cheerful haptic buzz that confirms the tap it’s about to ignore. The user hits the button, feels the confirmation, and gets nothing. The button has one job. It fails.

This is not a budget-phone problem. It is a compliance-mindset problem, and it is everywhere. A website that meets WCAG 2.1 AA to the letter can still be an unmitigated nightmare to use if the compliance work was done as a remediation pass at the end of the project — the digital equivalent of bolting a ramp onto the back of a building, next to the dumpsters, and calling it accessible.

The automated scanners that dominate the compliance market check for things that can be checked automatically: alt text on images, ARIA labels on interactive elements, color contrast ratios, heading hierarchy. They do not — cannot — check whether the alt text is useful. (“Image of a chart” passes. “Q4 revenue fell 18% year-over-year, driven by supply-chain disruptions” is what a human needs.) They cannot tell whether a “skip to main content” link actually lands somewhere sensible, or whether focus order makes any logical sense, or whether the site becomes unusable at 200% zoom.

A compliance officer I spoke with in a courthouse hallway after a settlement conference put it plainly: “We passed the audit with zero defects. Our blind users still can’t complete a benefits application without calling the help desk. The audit doesn’t measure that.”

The Plaintiffs’ Bar Has Noticed — and It’s Changing the Game

An uncomfortable shift is underway. The accessible.org forecast notes that AI tools are making it easier for individuals to file complaints without lawyers, driving up the volume of pro se filings. The DOJ, meanwhile, threw a wrench into a proposed class-action settlement in February of this year, signaling that the government is scrutinizing cookie-cutter settlements where plaintiffs’ attorneys collect fees while defendants promise to do better someday.

This is, in its way, progress. The checkbox regime is starting to crack under its own weight. But the crack is being widened by more litigation, not by a genuine rethinking of what digital accessibility should mean. The incentive structure remains: don’t get sued. The path of least resistance remains: hire the vendor, run the scan, fix what the scan flags, collect the certificate.

What We Lose When Every Button Has a Lawyer

The unsung.aresluna.org essay ends with a meditation on situational disability — the idea that disability is not a fixed property of a few people but a state anyone can enter depending on context. A parent holding a baby in one arm. Someone in bright sunlight squinting at a screen. A rushed office worker rotating dozens of scanned documents. These are not edge cases. They are most users, some of the time.

A button that ignores your tap during an animation is not just a problem for people with motor impairments. It is a problem for anyone who taps faster than the animation plays. The Nothing Phone designer who shipped that button almost certainly did not set out to exclude anyone. They just didn’t prioritize input responsiveness. And the compliance framework that governs digital accessibility — a framework built around static checklists and automated scans — didn’t catch it either, because “button ignores taps during animation” is not a WCAG failure criterion.

The grim irony is that the ADA’s digital mandate, as implemented through the compliance-industrial complex, is producing interfaces that are legally defensible and experientially hostile — and the hostility lands hardest on the very people the law was written to protect. A blind user navigating a perfectly-audited government portal that has technically correct ARIA labels and a completely incoherent tab order is living with the consequences of a system that confuses passing a test with doing the job.

A button has one job. So does a regulation.

Sources