2025: Website-accessibility suit under the ADA (Jackson v. Dropbox) ends in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice

Jackson v. Dropbox, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-04990) was filed on 12 June 2025 under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. The court's own order of 16 June 2025 summarises the claim: the plaintiff alleges that Dropbox's website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired customers and so violates Title III. That is an allegation. It was never tested: no answer, no motion on the merits and no ruling appear on the captured docket, and there is no finding that Dropbox's website was or was not accessible.

In the same 16 June 2025 order the judge wrote that, in the court's experience, cases involving such claims 'almost always settle, often even before the initial pretrial conference,' and referred the case to a magistrate judge for general pretrial purposes, including settlement. That is a general remark by the court about this kind of case, not a statement about how this one ended. Dropbox's waiver of service was returned executed on 31 July 2025 with an answer due 23 September 2025, and on 22 September 2025 Dropbox filed a letter motion to extend its time to answer, which the court granted on 23 September 2025, extending the deadline to 23 October 2025.

On 23 September 2025 the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) stating that the action was 'voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice and without costs' against Dropbox. The judge signed the dismissal on 25 September 2025. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars the plaintiff from bringing the same claims against Dropbox again; it is not a court finding on whether the website was accessible. The docket records no settlement agreement, no terms and no payment; this entry therefore does not say that the case settled, only that it ended by the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal with prejudice.

What this entry does not establish: this is the only accessibility entry in this archive, so whether Dropbox's products and website meet WCAG or ADA expectations is otherwise undocumented here. Dropbox publishes accessibility statements of its own; this archive has not checked them and makes no claim about what they say or whether they are accurate. The dismissal is neither a finding that the website was accessible nor a finding that it was not.