The Lesser-Known Predators: Shaked Law Group, Cohen & Mizrahi, and Lipsky Lowe's Growing ADA Lawsuit Operations

Introduction: Beyond the Headlines

When business owners think about ADA website lawsuits, they typically picture the headline-grabbing firms—Stein Saks, Mars Khaimov, Pacific Trial Attorneys. These are the litigation factories that made national news, the ones profiled in major investigations. But there's a second tier of firms quietly building empires on the backs of small and medium-sized businesses, filing hundreds or even thousands of cases with far less public scrutiny.

Meet the lesser-known predators: Shaked Law Group, Cohen & Mizrahi LLP (now Mizrahi Kroub), and Lipsky Lowe LLP. These firms have weaponized the Americans with Disabilities Act's noble intentions into a well-oiled litigation machine, powered by a rotating cast of serial plaintiffs who've made careers out of "testing" websites for accessibility violations.

The numbers tell a staggering story. New York alone saw 1,694 federal website accessibility cases filed in 2020—more than five times Florida's 302 cases. According to UsableNet's 2020 lawsuit tracking data, these three firms consistently rank in the top 10 plaintiff firms nationwide for digital ADA cases.

What makes these operations particularly insidious isn't just their volume—it's their methodology. Using boilerplate complaints, jurisdiction games, and professional "testers" like Aretha Crosson, Linda Slade, Marion Kiler, Pedro Martinez, Mary Conner, Josue Romero, Shael Cruz, Christian Sanchez, Brian Fischler, and Kareem Nisbett, they've transformed disability rights litigation into something that looks more like a protection racket than civil rights enforcement.

The Legal Perfect Storm: Why New York Became Ground Zero

To understand how these firms operate, you need to understand the legal environment that enables them. New York isn't just another state when it comes to ADA litigation—it's the epicenter of what critics call "lawsuit abuse" and what plaintiff attorneys call "necessary enforcement."

The magic formula combines three powerful legal tools:

First, there's Title III of the ADA itself, which requires places of public accommodation—including websites—to be accessible to people with disabilities. While the ADA only provides for injunctive relief and attorney's fees at the federal level, that's just the beginning.

Second, the New York State Human Rights Law adds teeth by allowing actual damages for disability discrimination. This transforms a simple accessibility issue into a potentially expensive state law violation.

Third, the New York City Human Rights Law piles on additional remedies, creating a triple-threat of liability for any business whose website can be accessed from New York.

According to Equidox's analysis, New York, California, and Florida account for more than 90% of all website accessibility lawsuits precisely because their state civil rights laws add statutory or punitive damages on top of federal ADA claims. This legal cocktail means a business in Wyoming or Maine can be dragged into New York court simply because their website ships products to Manhattan.

The result? A single missing alt-text tag or improperly labeled form field becomes the basis for a multi-statute lawsuit that can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend—even if you win.

Shaked Law Group: Dan Shaked's Assembly Line Operation

The Firm and Its Factory Model

Shaked Law Group, led by Dan Shaked, has perfected the art of mass-production litigation. Defense firm Karlin Law describes the "typical lawsuits filed by attorney Dan Shaked" as following an almost mechanical pattern: same plaintiffs, same allegations, same courts, different defendants.

The numbers are breathtaking. According to a 2024 Barclay Damon alert, Shaked Law Group has filed over 1,200 federal website accessibility suits, plus approximately 100 more in New York state courts. That's not a law practice—it's an industrial operation.

The firm's roster reads like a who's who of serial ADA plaintiffs. There's Pedro Martinez with 167 lawsuits since September 2017. Linda Slade with 239 lawsuits since July 2018. Aretha Crosson, who Barclay Damon identified as a "new tester plaintiff" in 2022, had already filed approximately 100 lawsuits by April of that year.

The Copy-Paste Complaint Factory

What's particularly revealing about Shaked's operation is the cookie-cutter nature of the complaints. Karlin Law's analysis includes a sample Shaked complaint that shows the boilerplate language used across hundreds of cases:

• The plaintiff is visually impaired and requires assistive technology • Census statistics claim 8.1 million visually impaired Americans, with approximately 400,000 in New York • The plaintiff is also a "tester" monitoring ADA compliance • The website contains "thousands of access barriers"

Compare this template to actual filed complaints, and the similarities are uncanny. The Crosson v. Ascena Retail Group/Dress Barn complaint uses nearly identical language about how "Plaintiff, Aretha Crosson, cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader software" and was "denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services" of both the website and physical stores.

The Target List: No Industry Is Safe

Shaked's plaintiffs cast a remarkably wide net. Aretha Crosson alone has sued:

• • Fashion and apparel companies like M.J. Soffe and Z Supply
• Lifestyle brands like The Sill (plants) and Havenly (interior design)
• Fitness companies like Openfit
• Food platforms like Yummly

Linda Slade's targets are equally diverse, ranging from Thrive Causemetics to Jinx pet products to Daily Grace Enterprises.

Marion Kiler has pursued an equally eclectic mix, from The Farmer's Dog pet food to HP Inc. to Taylor Nation (Taylor Swift's merchandise store).

The message is clear: if you have a website and sell anything online, you're a potential target.

Cohen & Mizrahi: The Volume Champions

From Brooklyn to Nationwide Dominance

While Shaked Law Group operates like a well-oiled machine, Cohen & Mizrahi LLP (now operating as Mizrahi Kroub LLP) has achieved something even more impressive—or disturbing, depending on your perspective. The New York Law Journal reports that Cohen & Mizrahi "has filed more website accessibility suits than any other litigator in the state", a distinction that has prompted legislative efforts to curb such litigation.

The firm's output is staggering. A KBG client alert from January 2019 noted that "since January 4, 2018, the law firm of Cohen & Mizrahi LLP alone has filed 687 ADA website accessibility lawsuits"—and that was just in a single year.

Business Insider's investigation revealed that Stein Saks and Cohen & Mizrahi combined filed 657 website cases in 2020 alone, accounting for approximately 25% of all such cases filed nationwide. When a quarter of an entire category of federal litigation comes from just two firms, you're not looking at advocacy—you're looking at an industry.

The Class Action Angle

Cohen & Mizrahi has distinguished itself by pursuing high-profile class actions that generate headlines and, presumably, higher settlements. Take the Blue Diamond Growers case, where plaintiff Josue Romero alleged that bluediamondstore.com lacked alt text, had empty links, redundant links, and improperly labeled buttons.

Or consider Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, where the Southern District of New York had to decide whether a Massachusetts company could be hauled into New York court over website accessibility. The court said yes—if you sell to New York customers through your website, you're subject to New York jurisdiction.

These aren't just individual lawsuits; they're attempts to create broader precedents and larger settlements. By framing cases as class actions, Cohen & Mizrahi amplifies the pressure on defendants to settle quickly and generously.

The Serial Plaintiff Stable

Cohen & Mizrahi's roster of serial plaintiffs reads like a frequent filer's hall of fame:

Josue Romero has become something of a celebrity in the ADA litigation world, with cases against Blue Diamond, 88 Acres Foods, and even Microsoft's Xbox platform. His complaints follow a predictable pattern: legally blind plaintiff encounters barriers, screen reader can't navigate the site, violation of federal and state law.

Shael Cruz has carved out a niche targeting pet-related businesses, including Spot Pet Insurance Services.

Christian Sanchez has filed dozens of suits across industries, from Lumondi, Inc. to Cards Against Humanity, all represented by Joseph H. Mizrahi.

The Business Insider investigation revealed something even more troubling: defense lawyers found complaints that were clearly copied and pasted, sometimes containing wrong pronouns or incorrect personal information about the plaintiffs. The volume was so high and the process so mechanical that quality control had gone out the window.

Lipsky Lowe: The Quiet Operator

From Employment Law to Website Litigation

Lipsky Lowe LLP presents itself differently than Shaked or Cohen & Mizrahi. Visit their website, and you'll find a firm that markets itself primarily as New York employment and disability discrimination specialists, focusing on workplace accommodations and traditional Title I ADA claims.

But beneath this professional veneer, Lipsky Lowe has quietly built a significant website accessibility practice. UsableNet's 2020 data ranks Lipsky Lowe among the top 10 plaintiff firms for ADA website and app suits—a remarkable achievement for a firm that doesn't even prominently advertise this practice area.

The Sophisticated Approach

What sets Lipsky Lowe apart is their more sophisticated approach to plaintiff selection and case development. Their plaintiffs tend to have stronger profiles as genuine accessibility advocates, making them harder to dismiss as mere "testers."

Brian Fischler, represented by Christopher H. Lowe, sued the immersive art experience Arcadia Earth in SDNY. Fischler is blind and has a track record as an accessibility advocate, lending more credibility to his tester status.

Kareem Nisbett, another Lipsky Lowe plaintiff, targeted Pique, Inc., a tea and wellness e-commerce company. Again, the complaint follows familiar patterns but with more sophisticated legal arguments and cleaner pleadings than the mass-produced Shaked complaints.

This quality-over-quantity approach (though they still file plenty of quantity) makes Lipsky Lowe cases potentially more dangerous for defendants. They're harder to dismiss on standing grounds and more likely to survive initial legal challenges.

The Serial Plaintiff Economy: Meet the "Testers"

The Professional Plaintiff Model

At the heart of this litigation ecosystem are the serial plaintiffs—individuals who have made careers out of finding and suing over website accessibility violations. They call themselves "testers," invoking civil rights history, but their actual practice bears little resemblance to the brave individuals who challenged segregation in the 1960s.

Let's examine the numbers more closely:

• • Linda Slade: 239 lawsuits since July 2018
• Pedro Martinez: 167 lawsuits since September 2017
• Aretha Crosson: Approximately 100 lawsuits by April 2022
• Mary Conner: More than 20 suits in 12 months

These aren't people who occasionally encounter barriers and seek redress. These are professional litigants whose full-time occupation appears to be browsing websites looking for technical violations they can monetize.

Mary Conner: The Celebrity Hunter

Mary Conner deserves special attention for her audacious target selection. She's the plaintiff who sued Beyoncé's website, generating headlines worldwide. But as the ADA Defense blog notes, that's not the real story. The real story is that Conner filed more than 20 similar suits in a 12-month period, targeting everything from Rihanna merchandise sites to Christmas tree vendors, jerky companies, workout platforms, and shoe retailers.

The ADA Defense blog's assessment is blunt: "Mary Conner is shopping for lawsuits, and anyone who operates a website is a potential target... She is not seeking out these businesses because she wants to buy their products but can't. She and those like her are searching for businesses to sue."

The "Tester" Legal Fiction

These plaintiffs routinely identify themselves as "testers" in their complaints, claiming they're monitoring ADA compliance for the public good. But courts are increasingly skeptical of this designation. Judicial Hellholes reports that Northern District of New York Judge Brenda Sannes dismissed 17 cases filed by serial plaintiff Deborah Laufer, reasoning that being a "tester" isn't enough to establish standing without concrete plans to actually use the business.

The tester doctrine, borrowed from Fair Housing Act litigation, sits uneasily in the website accessibility context. When someone files 239 lawsuits, are they really testing for the public good, or are they operating a litigation business?

The Playbook: How These Firms Operate

Step 1: The Boilerplate Complaint

Every operation needs efficiency, and these firms have achieved it through standardization. The sample Shaked complaint analyzed by Karlin Law reveals the template:

The complaints all follow the same structure:

• Plaintiff's disability and need for assistive technology
• Statistical padding with Census data about visual impairment
• Self-identification as a "tester"
• Vague allegations of "thousands of access barriers"
• Demand for injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees

The efficiency is remarkable—and remarkably cynical. Change the defendant's name, swap the website URL, file in EDNY or SDNY, and wait for the settlement offer.

Step 2: The Jurisdiction Trap

One of the most insidious aspects of this litigation model is how it exploits jurisdiction rules. The Romero v. 88 Acres Foods decision established that simply having an interactive e-commerce site that ships to New York is enough to establish personal jurisdiction.

This means a small business in Idaho, Iowa, or Indiana can be dragged into New York federal court—with its plaintiff-friendly judges and high defense costs—simply because they didn't geo-block New York customers. The KBG client alert warns that businesses outside New York, California, and Florida can still be sued in those jurisdictions if they derive sufficient revenue from residents of those states.

Step 3: The Settlement Squeeze

Business Insider's investigation revealed the economics of these cases: most settle for $5,000 to $20,000, with plaintiffs often receiving just a few hundred dollars while attorneys collect the lion's share in fees.

For defendants, it's a brutal calculation. Fighting the case might cost $50,000 or more in legal fees, even if you win. Settling for $15,000 starts to look reasonable, even when you know you're being extorted. The plaintiff firms know this math as well as anyone, and they've built their business model around it.

Step 4: No Actual Remediation Required

Perhaps the most damning indictment of this system is what happens after settlement. AccessDefense's analysis of Mary Conner's cases notes that most appear to result in confidential settlements with uncertain requirements for actual accessibility improvements.

If this were really about disability rights and access, wouldn't the settlements focus on fixing the barriers? Instead, they focus on payment, with remediation often treated as an afterthought—if it's addressed at all.

The Industry Response: Fighting Back or Giving In?

The Legislative Pushback

The sheer volume of litigation has finally prompted legislative attention. According to the New York Law Journal, New York lawmakers are planning measures to address the surge in ADA website accessibility suits, specifically targeting the serial lawsuit model.

Judicial Hellholes has labeled New York's situation as "ADA website accessibility abuse," noting that while "ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to the marketplace is undoubtedly important," the current system has devolved into something that "enriches attorneys" while potentially "bankrupting small businesses."

The Defense Bar Mobilizes

Defense firms have started tracking and publicizing these serial plaintiffs and their counsel. Firms like Karlin Law maintain detailed databases of serial plaintiffs, their attorneys, and their litigation patterns. Barclay Damon regularly publishes alerts warning businesses about new "tester" plaintiffs entering the market.

This information sharing helps businesses and their counsel identify patterns, develop defenses, and potentially coordinate responses. When you know that Linda Slade has filed 239 nearly identical lawsuits, it becomes easier to argue that she lacks standing or that her claims are brought in bad faith.

The Dangerous Middle Ground

But here's where things get complicated: website accessibility is a real issue. WebAIM's screen reader user surveys consistently show that people with visual impairments encounter significant barriers on most websites. The Bureau of Internet Accessibility notes that true WCAG compliance requires attention to numerous technical details that many businesses simply ignore.

The serial lawsuit model, however abusive, exists because there's no clear federal standard for website accessibility and no proactive enforcement mechanism. The DOJ's 2022 guidance confirms that Title III applies to websites but provides no detailed technical standard, leaving businesses in limbo and creating the perfect environment for litigation entrepreneurs.

The Real Cost: Beyond the Settlement Checks

Small Business Casualties

The human cost of this litigation machine extends far beyond settlement amounts. Small businesses—particularly those in retail and food service, which UsableNet data shows account for 76% and 12% of lawsuits respectively—face existential threats from these suits.

A family-owned restaurant with a basic website suddenly faces a federal lawsuit. They might spend $15,000 on a settlement, another $10,000 on legal fees, and then $20,000 on emergency website remediation. For a business operating on thin margins, especially post-pandemic, this unexpected $45,000 expense can mean the difference between survival and closure.

The Accessibility Paradox

Ironically, this predatory litigation model may actually harm accessibility progress. Businesses that get sued often implement quick, cosmetic fixes to make lawsuits go away rather than thoughtful, comprehensive accessibility improvements. They might add alt-text tags and aria-labels to satisfy a settlement agreement, but they don't fundamentally redesign their digital experiences to be truly inclusive.

Moreover, the association of accessibility with predatory lawsuits creates resentment and resistance. Business owners who might otherwise embrace accessibility as both a moral imperative and a business opportunity instead see it as a litigation trap to be avoided or minimally addressed.

The Reputation Damage

For the disability rights movement, the reputational damage from these serial lawsuits is significant. When accessibility becomes synonymous with shakedown lawsuits, it undermines decades of advocacy work. Legitimate accessibility advocates find themselves lumped in with serial plaintiffs who've filed hundreds of cookie-cutter lawsuits.

A Path Forward: Beyond the Litigation Circus

Understanding Your Risk Profile

If you operate a website that sells products or services, you're a potential target. The risk is particularly acute if you:

• Generate revenue from New York, California, or Florida customers
• Operate in retail, food service, or hospitality industries
• Have an older website that hasn't been updated for accessibility
• Lack documented accessibility policies and procedures

The comprehensive Equidox analysis makes it clear: any website reachable from these high-risk jurisdictions is a potential lawsuit target, regardless of where your business is physically located.

The Technical Reality Check

Looking at the actual allegations in these lawsuits reveals a pattern. The most commonly cited violations include:

• Missing alt text for images
• Unlabeled form fields
• Poor heading structure
• Keyboard navigation problems
• Lack of proper ARIA labels
• Empty or redundant links
• Inaccessible dropdown menus
• Missing error messages
• Improper focus indicators

These aren't exotic technical requirements—they're basic accessibility features that any competent web developer should understand. The fact that hundreds of businesses get sued over these same issues repeatedly suggests a massive failure in web development education and practice.

The Business Case for Proactive Accessibility

Here's what the serial plaintiffs and their law firms understand that many businesses don't: fixing accessibility issues before you get sued is far cheaper than defending a lawsuit. The math is simple:

Reactive approach (post-lawsuit):

• Settlement: $5,000-$20,000
• Legal fees: $10,000-$50,000
• Emergency remediation: $20,000-$50,000
• Total: $35,000-$120,000

Proactive approach:

• Accessibility audit: $2,000-$5,000
• Planned remediation: $10,000-$30,000
• Ongoing monitoring: $200-$500/month
• Total first year: $14,400-$41,000

Beyond the cost savings, proactive accessibility opens your business to the 61 million adults with disabilities in the United States—a market with over $490 billion in disposable income.

Conclusion: The Predators, The Prey, and The Path Forward

Shaked Law Group, Cohen & Mizrahi/Mizrahi Kroub, and Lipsky Lowe may not have the name recognition of the most notorious ADA lawsuit mills, but their impact on businesses is just as devastating. Through their industrial approach to litigation—powered by serial plaintiffs who've made careers out of finding technical violations—they've transformed the noble goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act into something that resembles organized extortion.

The data is undeniable. These firms have filed thousands of lawsuits. Their plaintiffs have sued hundreds of businesses each. The complaints are virtual carbon copies. The settlements rarely result in meaningful accessibility improvements. This isn't civil rights enforcement—it's a business model built on legal technicalities and the economics of nuisance settlements.

But acknowledging the predatory nature of these operations shouldn't obscure a critical fact: website accessibility remains a real problem that affects millions of Americans with disabilities. The serial lawsuit model thrives precisely because so many businesses have ignored or deprioritized accessibility for so long.

The path forward requires recognizing both truths. Yes, firms like Shaked, Cohen & Mizrahi, and Lipsky Lowe are exploiting the system. But they're exploiting a real vulnerability—the widespread failure to make digital experiences accessible to people with disabilities.

Smart businesses will respond not with resentment or minimal compliance, but with genuine commitment to accessibility. Not because they fear lawsuits (though that's certainly a motivator), but because accessible design is good design, because customers with disabilities deserve equal access, and because inclusive business is good business.

The serial plaintiffs and their law firms have built a profitable industry on the foundation of widespread accessibility failures. The best revenge isn't fighting them in court—it's making their business model obsolete by building genuinely accessible digital experiences that serve all customers, regardless of ability.

Until businesses embrace this approach, the predators will continue to circle, the lawsuits will keep flowing, and the cycle of litigation without meaningful improvement will continue. The question for every business owner is simple: Will you be the next prey, or will you take control of your accessibility destiny before the demand letter arrives?

The choice—and the clock—starts now.