How does a Shopify store prove it fixed what a demand letter cited?
A plaintiff's lawyer does not take your word for it. Proof means dated before-and-after evidence for every cited barrier, tied to the exact pages the letter named.
Fixed is not the same as proven fixed
After a demand letter lands, most stores do the right thing: they fix the barriers. Then they do the wrong thing: they tell the plaintiff's lawyer the barriers are fixed and offer nothing else. That is a claim, not proof, and claims do not move negotiations. Proof is dated, specific, and tied to the exact pages and barriers the letter named. Build it as you fix, not after.
Start from the letter, line by line
Turn the demand letter into a checklist. Every barrier it names becomes a row: the page URL, the quoted allegation, and the specific defect. Demand letters often cite the same few templates across many stores, and some allegations will not apply to your pages. Mark those too, with evidence of why. A row that says "not present on this page, verified by manual test on this date" is as valuable as a fixed row, because unaddressed allegations do not go away on their own.
Resist the urge to fix only what was cited. The letter is a sample, not a scope. A plaintiff who found three unlabeled buttons will assume there are thirty. Fix the cited items first for the record, then run the full remediation across the templates involved. The checklist proves the response; the broader fix prevents the second letter.
Capture before and after for every row
For each cited barrier, keep three artifacts: a dated screenshot or recording of the defect, a dated record of the fix (the code change, the theme edit, the app setting), and a dated verification that the barrier is gone, tested the same way the plaintiff would test it. Screen reader output, keyboard walkthrough recordings, and axe or WAVE scan exports all count. The dates matter because they establish the timeline: cited, fixed, verified.
Test the fix the way the allegation describes it, not just the way your developer prefers. If the letter says a screen reader could not complete checkout, the verification is a screen reader completing checkout, recorded. A passing automated scan alone does not rebut a manual-testing allegation.
Tie everything to the cited URLs
Plaintiffs test specific pages. Your evidence must reference those exact URLs, not equivalent templates. If the letter cited the homepage carousel and you fixed the carousel sitewide, the evidence row should name the homepage URL and note the sitewide fix. Precision here is what separates a credible remediation package from a generic "we take accessibility seriously" letter.
Keep the URLs live and unchanged while the matter is open. Redesigning the cited pages mid-dispute destroys the before-and-after comparison and looks evasive even when it is innocent. Freeze the relevant templates until the matter resolves.
Have someone independent verify
Self-verification is better than nothing, but an independent check carries more weight. This does not require a Big Four audit. A second developer, a freelance accessibility tester, or the agency that did not write the fix, running the same manual tests and signing off with dates, is enough. The point is that the verification was not done by the person who did the fixing.
Package it all as a single remediation report: the letter's allegations, the per-row evidence, the independent verification, and a statement of the ongoing monitoring in place. Hand that to counsel, not to the plaintiff directly. Counsel decides what to share and when. Your job is to make sure the package exists and is complete.
Keep monitoring after the matter closes
The most common sequel to a settled demand letter is a second letter eighteen months later citing regressions. The remediation report proves the fix; continuous monitoring proves it stayed fixed. Keep the cited pages under automated watch with alerts on regressions, and keep the evidence log running. If the second letter ever comes, the response starts from a position of documented diligence instead of a scramble.