If you’ve been involved in digital accessibility at all for the last few years, you’ve undoubtedly heard about the very frequent ADA lawsuits filed every day. Every day approximately 2-dozen new lawsuits are filed against website owners alleging that their website violates the ADA. Many of those lawsuits are against small businesses who lack the cash flow to fight the lawsuits and also lack the cash flow, staff, and knowledge of digital accessibility necessary to ensure their site is accessible. Add in the fact that most website, store theme, and app developers don’t know much about accessibility, and you get a perfect storm. Most websites are inaccessible and, therefore, do violate the civil rights of people with disabilities. Predatory lawyers are able to exploit this to their advantage. Going after small businesses means a quick settlement with minimal fight.
I could go on for pages about the various factors that contribute to this situation, but suffice it to say that after more than a decade of these predatory lawsuits, people are looking for change. There have been a number of proposed laws, some favoring one side of the issue (people with disabilities) and some favoring the other side of the issue (businesses). The good news is that it hasn’t actually risen to the status of a wedge issue like guns or abortion, but it is somewhat easy to see what lines will be drawn. That said, I feel that any reasonable person could see that something has to be done. Yesterday came news of yet another attempt at resolving the issue: The The ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, a bill proposed by Mike Lawler (R, NY) and Lou Correa (D, CA). The announcement comes with quotes by the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Small Business Association, and Associated General Contractors of America. Full text of the bill is available in PDF
The basic idea is that the bill would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to add a formal "notice-and-cure" (or "notice-and-remediation") procedure before a civil action can be filed by an individual alleging failure to remove an architectural barrier at an existing public accommodation/
What the proposed bill gets right
On its face, a structured remediation pathway could, if well-implemented, offer a way for many accessibility barriers to be removed more quickly and with less adversarial conflict, which could be beneficial for both individuals with disabilities and compliant business owners. After all, if the goal is to ensure that the accessibility barriers are removed, then having to go through the whole legal process to do so is little more than a speedbump. Under the proposed law, a person with a disability would first have to send a "written notice specific enough" to allow the business to identify the barrier(s) and fix them. Once notice is given, the business would have 30 days to respond with a written description of planned corrective actions. If the business fails to respond, or if after response they fail to remove the barrier (or make "substantial progress," if there’s an excuse for delay), then a civil action can proceed. Proponents claim the approach will encourage faster compliance and "collaboration" rather than immediate litigation, potentially reducing "drive-by lawsuits" and giving small businesses a reasonable opportunity to fix issues.
What the proposed bill gets wrong
From the standpoint of disability justice and civil-rights enforcement, there are serious potential downsides.
Delays in Access & Justice
Giving businesses 30 days (or more, if "substantial progress" is claimed) before a lawsuit can proceed necessarily delays actual access to services. For many disabled people, access delayed is access denied. Barriers that go unremediated — even temporarily — continue to exclude, harm, or inconvenience. The requirement to provide "written notice specific enough" may impose a significant burden on a disabled individual (especially someone with mobility, communication, or cognitive impairments) before they can invoke their rights under ADA. When it comes to digital accessibility, it places a high burden on the disabled person in terms of expected technical knowledge.
Risk of Inaction, Excuses, or "Curb-Appeasement"
Some businesses may ignore or drag out remediation, banking on the difficulty for individuals to follow up or re-engage in "substantial progress." The “substantial progress” standard is vague, making it open to interpretation, delay, or minimal effort.
On the other hand, for small businesses that genuinely want to comply but lack resources/knowledge, 30 days is often not enough time to remove structural barriers. In fact, it might not even be enough time to find a suitable contractor or accessibility consultant for the work.
Weakened Enforcement Mechanism; Discouraging Private-Enforcement
Private lawsuits under ADA have played a crucial role historically in forcing businesses to comply — especially where there is no proactive enforcement by government. By delaying or gating lawsuits, the bill could significantly reduce the effectiveness of private enforcement. The requirement to send prior written notice may deter many from filing at all — either because it’s burdensome, or they fear retaliation, or they lack the time, legal awareness, or resources. That risk disproportionately affects people with fewer resources, exacerbating inequities.
Inconsistent Accessibility Outcomes & Increased Inequality
In practice, compliance under this kind of notice-and-cure regime may become uneven. Businesses in wealthier areas might fix violations quickly; those in lower-income or marginalized areas might not — leaving disabled individuals in certain communities perpetually underserved. Serial "drive-by" lawsuits do exist and are a concern; but reform shouldn’t come at the expense of meaningful, timely access for disabled people. This bill seems more oriented to protecting business interests than ensuring the rights of disabled individuals.
Conclusion
While it frames itself as pragmatic and collaborative, in reality it risks delaying — and possibly denying — full and timely access for disabled people. The shift from immediate enforceable rights to a "notice-and-wait" paradigm threatens to weaken the powerful tool that private lawsuits under the ADA provide. Serial lawsuits are unquestionably bad. But as written, the bill appears more likely to benefit businesses than to realize the accessible, equitable society that the ADA aims for.