AudioEye Lawsuits: What Court Records and SEC Filings Actually Show in 2026

Last updated: September 15, 2026

Public records show a short, largely resolved litigation history for AudioEye itself: three complaints exchanged with accessiBe between 2020 and 2022, all dismissed after an October 2022 settlement, and a 2015 securities class action tied to a restatement under prior management. Its latest annual report discloses no material pending proceedings. Here is what the filings say — and the separate question most buyers are actually asking.

Key numbers: AudioEye and accessiBe filed three complaints against one another between October 2020 and June 2022; all three were dismissed without prejudice after a settlement announced October 24, 2022 (AudioEye Form 10-K, fiscal 2022). The 2015 securities class action settled for $1,525,000, paid by the company's insurer with no admission of liability (Form 10-K, fiscal 2017). Industry-wide and unattributed to any vendor: 1,000+ businesses with accessibility widgets installed were named in 2024 filings (TestParty analysis of Court Listener records), and plaintiffs filed 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, up 27% (Seyfarth Shaw).

TestParty competes in this market. This article summarizes public court records and SEC filings as of September 2026. It is general information, not legal advice.

Why do people search for AudioEye lawsuits?

Two jobs drive this search: procurement diligence on a vendor, and a business that already runs accessibility software and just received a demand letter. Those questions take different evidence.

The first is answerable from primary sources, because AudioEye is a public company (NASDAQ: AEYE) and must disclose material legal proceedings in its SEC filings. The second asks whether buying any accessibility product prevents lawsuits — a question about approach, better answered by industry-wide filing data than by one vendor's docket. This article keeps the two apart.

What does AudioEye actually sell?

AudioEye is a hybrid digital accessibility platform, not a pure overlay. Per its most recent Form 10-K, it combines automated machine-learning fixes, testing and custom remediation by certified human accessibility experts, and supplemental legal support services intended to reduce litigation risk.

That description matters when reading anything about AudioEye and litigation: grouping it with widget-only vendors misstates what it sells, and so does assuming its expert services come with every plan. AudioEye reported full-year 2025 revenue up 15%, roughly $40.0 million in annual recurring revenue, and about 131,000 customers at year end (Form 10-K, fiscal 2025), much of that count arriving through reseller and platform-partner channels. Being public also means audited financials and disclosed proceedings — which is why this article rests on primary documents.

What do court records show about AudioEye as a litigant?

Public records show a limited set of matters involving AudioEye directly, most years old and resolved: the 2020–2022 disputes with accessiBe, and a 2015 securities class action tied to a restatement of 2014 interim financials.

+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|                       Matter                       |                      Court                      |                   Filed                   |             Status per public records              |
+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|          AudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd.          |    W.D. Tex. (Waco), transferred to W.D.N.Y.    |                Oct 26, 2020               | Dismissed without prejudice after the October 2022 settlement |
+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| AudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd. (second complaint) |                 W.D. Tex. (Waco)                |                Jul 14, 2021               |    Dismissed without prejudice, same settlement    |
+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|          accessiBe Ltd. v. AudioEye, Inc.          |            D. Del., No. 1:22-cv-00792           |                Jun 16, 2022               |    Dismissed without prejudice, same settlement    |
+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|     In re AudioEye, Inc. Securities Litigation     |                     D. Ariz.                    |   April 2015 (two consolidated actions)   | Settled for $1,525,000 paid by the company's insurer, no admission of liability; approved 2017 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Shareholder derivative complaints (LiPoChing; Hebert) |   D. Ariz.; Ariz. Superior Court, Pima County   |         May 16, 2016; Jul 26, 2016        | Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; motion to dismiss granted 2017 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+

Sources: AudioEye Forms 10-K for fiscal 2022 and 2017 (Item 3) and the linked federal docket.

Two details deserve precision. The Delaware case accessiBe filed against AudioEye is docketed as a patent infringement action before Judge Colm F. Connolly; AudioEye's 10-K says the parties "announced a global settlement of all pending legal disputes" and discloses no terms, so no one outside them can say who prevailed. The securities matter named the company alongside two former officers roughly a decade ago, under prior leadership.

Separately, AudioEye announced that a New York state court dismissed with prejudice a suit brought by a former employee against the company, its CEO, and its chairman (company announcement, February 4, 2025). Its fiscal 2025 Form 10-K reports only claims arising "in the normal course of business."

Has any regulator taken action against AudioEye?

We are aware of no FTC enforcement action, consent order, or civil penalty against AudioEye. The accessibility enforcement action most often cited in this market is scoped to a different company.

In April 2025 the FTC approved a final order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million under a 20-year consent order, over claims about its product's ability to make websites WCAG-compliant. That order names accessiBe specifically; it is not a ruling about overlays generally and says nothing about any other vendor. Our comparison of accessiBe, UserWay, and AudioEye covers how the three differ on approach and disclosure.

Do businesses running accessibility software still get demand letters?

Yes — and this is where the industry-wide data lives. Based on TestParty's analysis of Court Listener public records, more than 1,000 businesses with accessibility widgets installed were named in accessibility lawsuits in 2024, and 456 more in the first half of 2025.

Two scoping caveats are essential. That dataset identifies defendants whose sites carried a widget or script from any vendor at filing; it is not broken out by vendor and says nothing about AudioEye's customers specifically. And hundreds of thousands of sites run such tools while most are never sued in a given year, so the figure describes a population, not a per-customer risk. The takeaway is narrow and approach-level: installing software does not by itself remove the barriers a plaintiff's expert documents. Our overlay lawsuit dataset carries the methodology; our guide for businesses sued with a widget installed covers the response sequence.

Vendor legal support is also real: AudioEye announced in March 2023 that it defended a customer in a New York federal accessibility case dismissed with no monetary settlement, crediting its documentation and expert services.

Why does automation-first tooling leave testable violations?

Because automated detection has a ceiling that serious vendors acknowledge, hybrid ones included. In TestParty's audits, roughly 60–70% of WCAG issues surface through automated scanning and about 30% require human review to find at all.

The reason is structural, not a knock on any product. Automation reliably catches machine-checkable failures: missing alt attributes, empty links, contrast ratios. It cannot judge whether alt text is meaningful, whether reading order makes sense, or whether a custom component behaves correctly under a screen reader — and those judgments are what a plaintiff's expert documents. That is why AudioEye pairs automation with certified human testers, and why the Overlay Fact Sheet, signed by 800+ practitioners, argues script-delivered corrections do not repair a site's underlying code. In our assessment the durable question is where the fix lands: script-rendered corrections stop when the script stops; fixes committed to your repository remain after any contract ends.

What should an evaluator actually ask a vendor?

Ask for evidence, not reassurance. Five questions separate vendors that can document outcomes from vendors that can only describe them — and they apply equally to AudioEye, TestParty, and anyone else.

1. What material legal proceedings have you disclosed, and where can I read them? Public companies file this in Item 3 of the 10-K; private vendors should answer in writing.
2. How many customers were named in accessibility lawsuits or received demand letters in the last 24 months, out of how many customers? Insist on both numbers. In the history of TestParty, fewer than 1% of customers have been named in accessibility lawsuits while on the platform.
3. What does your legal support include, and at which tier? Get trigger conditions, exclusions, and whether it is documentation help or something broader.
4. What survives cancellation? Disable the script in staging and re-scan; the delta is what you were renting.
5. What benchmarks will you commit to, re-tested by whom? Named, re-testable targets beat a badge. A fuller set is in our accessibility vendor RFP questions.

What this record does not show

It does not show that AudioEye customers face unusual legal risk. Nothing in the public dockets, the SEC filings, or TestParty's widget dataset supports that claim, and the widget dataset is not attributed by vendor.

What it shows is narrower: a public company whose litigation history is limited and largely historical, in an industry where filings keep rising for everyone. In our assessment, litigation history is a legitimate but minor diligence input — it describes past disputes, not whether your checkout works with a screen reader. For criteria that bear on that, see our comparison of AudioEye alternatives.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AudioEye currently being sued? AudioEye's most recent Form 10-K (fiscal 2025) discloses no material pending legal proceedings, noting only claims arising in the normal course of business. Public companies must disclose material proceedings, so that filing is the authoritative current source.

What happened in the AudioEye and accessiBe lawsuits? AudioEye filed complaints against accessiBe in October 2020 (W.D. Texas, later transferred to W.D.N.Y.) and July 2021; accessiBe filed a patent complaint in Delaware in June 2022. On October 24, 2022 the companies announced a global settlement and all three were dismissed without prejudice, on undisclosed terms.

Did AudioEye have a securities lawsuit? Yes. Two class actions filed in April 2015 in the District of Arizona, consolidated as In re AudioEye, Inc. Securities Litigation, named the company and two former officers after it announced a restatement of 2014 interim results. It settled for $1,525,000 paid by the insurer, no admission of liability, approved in 2017.

Has the FTC fined AudioEye? No. We are aware of no FTC action against AudioEye. The FTC's $1 million payment and 20-year consent order, finalized in April 2025, applies to accessiBe specifically and concerns that company's marketing claims about making websites WCAG-compliant.

Can using AudioEye get me sued? No vendor's product causes a lawsuit, and none prevents one. Claims follow barriers a tester can document on your live site. Per TestParty's Court Listener analysis, 1,000+ businesses with widgets of any brand were named in 2024 filings — a population-level figure, not broken out by vendor. Verify current status in AudioEye's Forms 10-K on SEC EDGAR and the dockets on Court Listener or PACER.

TestParty practices a cyborg approach to content: AI assists with research and drafting, our accessibility experts validate every claim. This article represents our editorial perspective based on public data as of the publication date. We compete in the digital accessibility space — which means we have informed opinions, but also a vested interest. All sources are cited so you can draw your own conclusions.