Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 3, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a mandatory administrative 'notice and cure' process for digital accessibility claims under the ADA, potentially reducing immediate litigation but also creating significant new hurdles for individuals seeking to enforce their civil rights through the courts.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by adding a new Title VI specifically for consumer-facing websites and mobile applications. It requires individuals to exhaust a new administrative remedy process before they can file a civil lawsuit for alleged non-compliance with ADA Title III accessibility standards related to these digital platforms. The process involves notifying the business, allowing a 180-day cure period, and then filing a complaint with the Department of Justice, which has 360 days to investigate; crucially, if the Attorney General fails to make a determination within this period, it is considered a final determination of compliance.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is necessary to protect small businesses from what they characterize as 'predatory' lawsuits, where businesses are sued without prior notice or opportunity to fix accessibility issues. They contend that the administrative process encourages good-faith compliance, reduces costly litigation, and provides a structured mechanism for resolving accessibility concerns before they escalate to court battles, ultimately benefiting both businesses and individuals with disabilities by fostering a more collaborative approach to accessibility.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill creates significant new barriers to justice for individuals with disabilities, effectively weakening the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They argue that requiring administrative exhaustion and imposing lengthy waiting periods, especially with the provision that a lack of DOJ determination equates to compliance, will delay access to essential services and undermine the civil rights framework of the ADA, making it harder for individuals to achieve digital accessibility.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions and their implications.
Section 2, new Title VI
Establishment of New ADA Title VI for Digital Accessibility
This provision adds a new Title VI to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, specifically addressing accessibility requirements for consumer-facing websites and mobile applications owned or operated by private entities. This creates a distinct legal framework within the ADA for digital accessibility, separating it from the existing Title III provisions that primarily cover physical places of public accommodation.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that creating a dedicated title for digital accessibility provides much-needed clarity and a tailored approach to an evolving area of law, which has historically relied on interpretations of physical accessibility standards. This specificity can help businesses understand their obligations better.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that creating a separate title could inadvertently carve out digital accessibility from the broader civil rights protections of Title III, potentially leading to weaker standards or enforcement for online spaces compared to physical ones. No specific opposition is typically raised against the act of creating a new title itself, but rather its content.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves gaining clarity and specificity for digital accessibility versus the potential risk of isolating it from the established and robust enforcement mechanisms of the broader ADA framework.
Section 2, new Section 601(a)
Mandatory Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
This provision mandates that no individual can file a civil lawsuit against a private entity for an inaccessible consumer-facing website or mobile application under ADA Title III until they have fully completed all administrative remedies outlined in this new section. This means direct civil litigation is no longer the first recourse for digital accessibility complaints.
Section 2, new Section 601(b)
Mandatory Notice and 180-Day Cure Period
Before filing a complaint with the Attorney General, an individual must first notify the owner or operator of the consumer-facing website or mobile application about the alleged non-compliance. The business then has 180 days from receiving this notice to bring their digital platform into compliance with ADA Title III standards. Only if the business fails to achieve compliance within this 180-day 'cure period' can the individual proceed to file a complaint with the Department of Justice.
Section 2, new Section 601(c)
Department of Justice Investigation and Default Compliance Determination
After the 180-day cure period, if non-compliance persists, an individual may file a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) within a subsequent 180-day window. Upon receiving a complaint, the Attorney General is required to complete an investigation within 360 days to determine if a violation exists. A critical aspect is that if the Attorney General fails to make a determination within this 360-day period, it is automatically considered a 'final determination of compliance,' effectively barring the individual from commencing a civil action.
Section 2, new Section 602
Definitions for Digital Accessibility Terms
This section defines key terms used within the new Title VI. A 'consumer facing website' is defined as any website purposefully made accessible to the public for commercial purposes. A 'mobile application' is defined as a consumer-facing software application executable on a mobile platform, or a web-based application tailored to a mobile platform but executed on a server. These definitions aim to clarify the scope of digital platforms covered by the new administrative requirements.
For the purpose of determining whether an individual may commence a civil action, the failure of the Attorney General to make a determination during the 360-day period after a complaint is filed with the Department shall be considered a final determination of compliance.
Section 601(c)(3)(B)
Why it matters:While it could be argued as standard legislative drafting to define administrative outcomes, the significant consequence of administrative inaction leading to a default 'compliance' finding suggests a deliberate design to limit litigation, potentially making it less prominent to avoid immediate political scrutiny.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision provides certainty for businesses, ensuring that administrative complaints do not linger indefinitely and that a clear endpoint exists for the administrative process. It incentivizes the Department of Justice to act promptly.
Case against: Critics contend this provision is a severe blow to civil rights enforcement. They argue it effectively allows businesses to avoid accountability if the Department of Justice is under-resourced, backlogged, or chooses not to act, thereby creating an almost insurmountable barrier for individuals with disabilities seeking digital access through the courts.
Estimated impact: This provision has the potential to significantly reduce the number of civil lawsuits filed for digital accessibility, shifting the burden of enforcement almost entirely onto the Department of Justice and potentially nullifying claims due to administrative inaction.