California ADA Demand Letter Tracker
California is the only state that requires attorneys to report every pre-litigation ADA demand letter to a public commission. The CCDA publishes the aggregate counts — never the individual letters. This page combines those official totals with opt-in case studies from businesses who chose to share their letter publicly.
Cal. Civ. Code § 55.32
What attorneys must report, and what the public actually sees.
The reporting requirement
Any attorney sending a pre-litigation construction-related accessibility demand letter (ADA / Unruh Act) must include their California Bar number on the letter and submit a copy of the letter plus standardized metadata to the California Commission on Disability Access (CCDA) within five business days. Failure to report is grounds for State Bar discipline.
What CCDA publishes
CCDA publishes aggregate counts only — how many letters per period, how many became state-court complaints, how many became federal-court complaints, and a top-ten list of alleged violation categories. The per-letter database is not public; getting per-letter detail requires a manual records request to CCDA staff.
What this tracker adds
Businesses who receive a demand letter can voluntarily contribute the metadata (sending firm, date, allegations, demand amount). Submissions feed the aggregate statistics anonymously by default; individual case studies appear only when the submitter explicitly opts in. The goal: visibility into who's sending these letters, at what scale.
Where the complaints went
State court vs federal court split for the cases that did get filed. The 'neither' bucket is letters that never ripened into a complaint.
Source: CCDA 2025 State and Federal Complaints and Demand Letters Report.
Demand letters reported per period
Note the dramatic ramp in the second half of 2025 — 379 letters in H2 alone.
CCDA changed from quarterly to semi-annual reporting partway through 2025; H2 represents Jul–Dec combined.
Letters businesses chose to share
These are submitters who explicitly opted into having their case published as a study. Most submissions stay anonymous and feed only the aggregate statistics above. Submitter PII is redacted in every published entry.
No published case studies yet.
If you received an ADA demand letter, you can contribute to the aggregate statistics anonymously — and optionally let us feature your case as a study.
Contribute to the dataset →What 2024 looked like, for comparison
Source: CCDA 2024 State and Federal Complaints and Demand Letters Report.
Where this data comes from
CCDA aggregates are scraped from the year-specific report pages at dgs.ca.gov/CCDA/Resources. CCDA publishes counts but not per-letter detail; obtaining the per-letter database from CCDA requires individual records requests. We mirror what CCDA publishes verbatim and link to the source page on every row.
Submitted data comes from businesses that received an ADA demand letter from a California attorney. Each entry is reviewed by a human moderator who redacts submitter PII (email, IP, employee identifiers) before publishing. Submitter contact information is never shown. Submissions can be removed on request.
This page is not legal advice. The data does not necessarily reflect the merits of any letter, and being named as a sending firm does not imply wrongdoing. The complete list of attorneys subject to § 55.32 reporting is maintained by the California State Bar.