ACCESS Act of 2026.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 21, 2026
Bottom line
The ACCESS Act of 2026 aims to reduce ADA litigation by requiring a pre-suit notice and cure period for access barriers, shifting the focus towards education and mediation for compliance.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 to introduce a mandatory notice and cure period before an individual can file a private civil action regarding architectural or technological barriers to access in public accommodations. It requires the aggrieved person to provide specific written notice of the barrier and allows the owner 60 days to outline improvements or make substantial progress. Additionally, it directs the Department of Justice to develop an education program for property owners and mandates a study on web accessibility standards.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current ADA litigation system is often exploited by "drive-by" lawsuits that prioritize legal fees over actual accessibility improvements, burdening small businesses with costly litigation for minor or easily correctable violations. They contend that a notice and cure period will encourage direct communication, allow businesses to fix issues proactively, and lead to faster, more efficient accessibility for individuals with disabilities, while also reducing frivolous lawsuits.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that such notice and cure provisions weaken the ADA by delaying access to justice and placing an undue burden on individuals with disabilities to act as unpaid enforcement agents. They contend that businesses have had decades to comply with the ADA, and introducing further delays or requirements undermines the law's intent to ensure immediate and equal access, potentially allowing non-compliant businesses to prolong discrimination.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core changes.
Section 2
ADA Compliance Education Program
This section directs the Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice (DOJ), using existing funding, to create an educational program. This program will advise state and local governments and property owners on effective ways to make public accommodations accessible for people with disabilities. It may also include training for Certified Access Specialists to guide remediation efforts. The DOJ must also make technical assistance publications available in multiple languages.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that education is a proactive and less adversarial approach to achieving ADA compliance. By providing clear guidance and training, businesses can understand their obligations better and implement solutions without the threat of immediate litigation, fostering a more collaborative environment for accessibility improvements.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while education is valuable, it is not a substitute for robust enforcement. They may contend that decades of education have already occurred, and relying solely on voluntary compliance through education without strong legal recourse could slow down necessary accessibility changes.
Tradeoffs
Balances proactive compliance through education against the need for effective enforcement mechanisms.
Section 3
Mandatory Notice and Cure Period for ADA Civil Actions
This is the core of the bill. It amends the ADA to require that before a civil action can be filed for failure to remove an architectural barrier or a technological barrier (website/app), the aggrieved person must first send a written notice to the owner/operator. This notice must be specific enough to identify the barrier. The owner then has 60 days to either provide a written description of planned improvements or make substantial progress in removing the barrier. If they fail to do so, or if they fail to remove the barrier within 60 days of providing the description (or make substantial progress if more time is needed), then a lawsuit can commence. The notice must also detail the circumstances of actual denial of access, including the address/URL and whether assistance was requested.
Section 5
Model Program for Alternative Dispute Resolution
This section directs the Judicial Conference of the United States to develop a model program for alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, for claims related to architectural barriers in public accommodations. The program should aim to resolve claims quickly and efficiently, potentially including a stay of discovery during mediation, and should involve property owners and disability rights representatives in its development.
Section 6
Attorney General Study on Web Accessibility Standards
This section requires the Attorney General to complete a study within one year of the bill's enactment. The study will determine whether WCAG 2.0 standards, accessibility widgets, or providing a telephone number for information/services (as an alternative to a website) would all provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities under the ADA.
The written notice required for the cure period must specify in detail the circumstances of actual denial of access, including the property address/URL/Bundle ID, whether assistance was requested, and if the barrier was permanent or temporary.
Section 3, subparagraph (C)
Why it matters:This level of detail is standard legislative practice for defining procedural requirements, ensuring clarity and specificity in legal documents.
Case for: Proponents argue that requiring such specific details in the notice ensures that property owners receive actionable information, preventing vague complaints and allowing them to efficiently identify and address the exact barrier. This specificity reduces ambiguity and facilitates genuine remediation.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these detailed requirements place an additional burden on individuals with disabilities, who may not always have all the precise technical information (like a "Bundle ID" for an app) or may find it difficult to articulate the exact "circumstances of actual denial" in a legally sufficient manner, potentially leading to notices being deemed invalid and further delaying their ability to seek redress.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly impacts the initial steps of ADA enforcement actions, potentially reducing the number of lawsuits based on non-compliant notices while ensuring that valid notices provide clear information for remediation.