The short answer: no, they don't have to want to use your services

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a business or organization cannot refuse service to someone because of their disability — but the law does not require that person to actually want or use what you offer. The legal question is whether you have made your service available to them on equal terms. If someone with a disability sues you, they are claiming you blocked access. They are not claiming you forced them to become your customer.

This distinction matters because it shapes what you need to prove in your defense. You cannot win by arguing "they wouldn't have used it anyway" or "they didn't actually want the service." Those arguments miss the point of the law. The ADA is about removing barriers to access, not about guaranteeing that disabled people will choose to use every service offered to them.

Key Takeaways

  • The ADA requires you to provide equal access to your services for people with disabilities, regardless of whether they actually use them.
  • A plaintiff does not have to prove they would have used your service if the barrier had not existed — only that the barrier existed and was based on disability.
  • Your defense cannot rest on the argument that the person did not want your service; it must address whether you actually removed the barrier or whether removing it would cause undue burden.
  • Undue burden is a specific legal test about cost and operational difficulty, not about whether someone might choose not to use the service anyway.
  • Courts have rejected defenses based on a plaintiff's lack of interest in the service itself.

What the plaintiff actually has to prove

In an ADA lawsuit, the plaintiff's burden is to show three things: they have a disability, your organization provides a service or operates a place of public accommodation, and you denied them equal access because of that disability. They do not have to prove they would have purchased from you, used your facility regularly, or benefited from the service in any particular way.

This is why a person who never intended to visit your restaurant can still sue if you refuse to remove a barrier at the entrance. The law protects access itself, not the outcome of using that access. A plaintiff might have walked in once, or never. The legal violation occurred the moment you blocked the door.

Why "they didn't want it anyway" is not a legal defense

Courts have consistently rejected arguments that a plaintiff's lack of interest in a service defeats an ADA claim. The reason is structural: if businesses could defend themselves by claiming a disabled person would not have used the service anyway, the law would collapse. Any business could straightforward assume disabled people would not want what they offer and refuse to remove barriers.

The defense you can actually use is undue burden — a specific legal test that asks whether removing the barrier would cost too much or fundamentally alter your operations. This is not the same as "the person probably would not have come anyway." Undue burden requires you to show real financial or operational hardship, usually with documentation. It is a high bar, and courts examine it closely.

Another valid defense is that the person was not actually denied access — that you did remove the barrier, or that no barrier existed. But you cannot defend yourself by arguing about the plaintiff's hypothetical preferences or likelihood of using your service.

How courts have ruled on this question

In cases where defendants have argued "the plaintiff would not have used our service," courts have found the argument irrelevant to the legal question. For example, in cases involving website accessibility, defendants have tried to argue that a blind plaintiff would not have purchased their product anyway. Courts have rejected this reasoning and focused instead on whether the website was accessible.

The same principle applies to physical spaces, employment, and other areas covered by the ADA. A person who uses a wheelchair does not have to prove they would have shopped at your store if the entrance were accessible. They only have to show that the entrance was not accessible and that you are a covered entity under the law.

What matters to a court is whether you created or maintained a barrier based on disability. The plaintiff's actual use or interest in your service is legally irrelevant to whether that barrier existed.

What you should focus on instead

If you are facing an ADA claim, your defense should address the actual legal requirements, not the plaintiff's hypothetical behavior. Ask yourself: Did we actually deny access based on disability? If yes, can we show that removing the barrier would cause undue burden? If we removed the barrier, can we document when and how?

These are the questions that matter in court. Arguing about whether someone would have used your service is a distraction from the legal facts. It may feel intuitive to say "they would not have come anyway," but that argument will not persuade a judge or jury because it is not what the law asks.

If you are working with a disability lawyer, they will help you build a defense around actual barriers, actual costs, and actual operational impacts — not around assumptions about what a plaintiff might have wanted.

The difference between access and use

The ADA is built on a distinction between access and use. Access is your legal obligation. Use is the plaintiff's choice. You must remove barriers to access; you cannot control whether someone chooses to use your service once the barrier is gone.

This is why a person can sue for denial of access even if they never would have used your service. The law protects their right to make that choice themselves, not your right to make it for them by assuming they would not want it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I defend myself by saying the plaintiff never actually used my service?

No. Courts do not consider actual use relevant to an ADA claim. The violation is the denial of access, not the plaintiff's decision about whether to use the service. You can defend yourself by showing you did not deny access, or that removing the barrier would cause undue burden — but not by arguing the person would not have used it anyway.

What if the plaintiff is suing just to cause trouble, not because they actually wanted the service?

The plaintiff's motivation does not change whether a barrier existed. The ADA protects access as a right, independent of whether someone intends to exercise it. If a barrier exists and is based on disability, that is a violation regardless of the plaintiff's reasons for suing.

Does undue burden mean the same thing as "the plaintiff probably would not have used it"?

No. Undue burden is a specific legal test about cost and operational difficulty. It requires documentation and evidence of real hardship. It is not about the plaintiff's preferences or likelihood of using the service. You must show actual financial or operational impact, usually with numbers and details.

If I remove the barrier now, does that end the lawsuit?

Removing the barrier may affect damages, but it does not necessarily end the lawsuit. The plaintiff may still have a claim for past denial of access. Your lawyer can advise you on whether removing the barrier now affects your legal position and what it means for settlement or trial.

What should I tell my lawyer about this situation?

Tell your lawyer exactly what barrier existed, when it existed, whether you have removed it, and what it would cost to remove it if you have not. Give them documentation of any costs or operational challenges. Do not focus on whether you think the plaintiff would have used your service — focus on the facts about the barrier itself.