California SB 84: The 120-Day Right to Cure That Could Reshape ADA Enforcement

California — the state that generates more ADA lawsuits than any other in the nation — has introduced legislation that could fundamentally change how accessibility enforcement works. Senate Bill 84 proposes giving businesses 120 days to fix ADA violations before a lawsuit can proceed, making it the most generous cure window proposed by any state in the country.

The bill arrives at a critical moment. Federal ADA lawsuits remain at near-record levels, with 8,667 cases filed in 2025. Pro se filings are up 40% year-over-year, fueled by AI tools that let individuals sue without attorneys. And California sits at the center of it all — responsible for 3,252 of those federal lawsuits, more than Florida and New York combined.

Here's everything you need to know about SB 84, how it fits into the broader national reform movement, and what it means for your business — whether you're in California or not.

1. What Is California SB 84?

California Senate Bill 84 is proposed legislation that would create a "right to cure" for businesses accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. In practical terms, it means:

• Notice before lawsuit: Before filing an ADA lawsuit, the plaintiff must provide the business with written notice of the alleged violation.
• 120-day cure window: The business gets 120 days from receiving notice to fix the accessibility issue.
• Dismissal if cured: If the business successfully remediates the violation within the 120-day window, the lawsuit is dismissed.
• Proceeds if not cured: If the business fails to act within 120 days, the lawsuit proceeds as normal.

The 120-day cure period is the longest proposed by any state. For context, Utah's SB 68 offers 90 days, Missouri's bills propose 30 days, and the federal ADA 30 Days to Comply Act proposes — as its name suggests — just 30 days.

2. Why California, Why Now

California's decision to introduce ADA lawsuit reform is significant precisely because the state has been ground zero for ADA litigation for over a decade. According to Seyfarth Shaw's 13-year tracking data, California has led the nation in federal ADA Title III lawsuits every year since 2013, with the sole exception of 2022 when New York briefly held the top spot.

Several factors are converging in 2026 to make reform politically viable:

• Record filing volume: California's 3,252 federal ADA lawsuits in 2025 are triple the state's 2013 numbers (995 cases). This doesn't count state court filings, which are increasing as plaintiffs migrate from federal courts.
• Serial plaintiff backlash: High-profile investigations, including Cox Media Group's coverage across 9+ TV stations in 7 markets, have exposed how serial plaintiffs and their attorneys file hundreds of near-identical lawsuits targeting minor technical violations.
• AI-accelerated filings: Pro se ADA lawsuits surged 40% in 2025, with Seyfarth Shaw confirming that most pro se litigants use AI tools. This lowers the barrier to filing suit, increasing volume without proportionally increasing access to justice.
• Multi-state momentum: Utah and Missouri have already introduced similar legislation, creating political cover for California lawmakers.
• Judicial signals: A California justice recently noted that ADA reform "should be directed toward the Legislature" — a clear signal that the judiciary believes the courts alone cannot solve the problem of abusive litigation.

3. How the 120-Day Cure Period Works

Here's the process SB 84 would establish for ADA claims, including website accessibility lawsuits:

The key difference from current law: under today's system, plaintiffs can file suit immediately upon discovering a violation, without any notice requirement or cure opportunity. This means businesses often first learn about an accessibility issue when they're served with a lawsuit — at which point they're already facing legal fees, settlement pressure, and reputational damage.

4. Three-State Comparison: California vs. Utah vs. Missouri

California isn't acting alone. Three states have simultaneously introduced ADA lawsuit reform in early 2026, creating a coordinated — if unplanned — national movement. Here's how the three approaches compare:

California's approach is the most business-friendly of the three, with the longest cure period. Utah's is the most aggressive, allowing businesses to counter-sue serial plaintiffs for up to $10,000. Missouri's is the most modest, with just a 30-day window — the same as the proposed federal standard.

For a deeper analysis of the Utah and Missouri bills, including specific bill text and legislative history, see our comprehensive guide: Utah & Missouri Anti-ADA Lawsuit Bills: What Businesses Need to Know in 2026.

5. California ADA Lawsuit Data (2013–2025)

To understand why SB 84 matters, you need to see the numbers. California has been the nation's top ADA lawsuit state for nearly every year that Seyfarth Shaw has been tracking the data:

Source: Seyfarth Shaw ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Tracking (2013–2025). California state court filings not included — these are increasing as plaintiffs migrate from federal courts.

The data tells a clear story: California consistently generates one-third or more of all federal ADA lawsuits nationwide. In 2021, the state was responsible for over half of all cases. And these numbers don't include state court filings, which Seyfarth Shaw notes are increasing as California federal courts "aggressively decline supplemental jurisdiction" over state law claims.

The true volume of ADA litigation in California — including state court cases — is likely significantly higher than what the federal data shows.

6. The Serial Litigation Problem

SB 84 exists because of a fundamental tension in ADA enforcement. The ADA is a critical civil rights law that protects millions of Americans with disabilities. But the ADA's private enforcement mechanism — which allows individuals to sue businesses for accessibility violations — has been exploited by serial plaintiffs and their attorneys.

The pattern is well-documented:

• High-volume filing: Some plaintiffs and law firms file hundreds of near-identical lawsuits per year. In the Fashion Nova case, the DOJ noted that Class Counsel had filed "the same exact lawsuit" in 500+ cases between 2019 and 2023.
• Technical violations targeted: Many lawsuits target minor technical WCAG violations — missing alt text, low color contrast ratios, unlabeled form fields — that represent genuine accessibility barriers but are easily fixable. The lawsuits seek settlements rather than remediation.
• Settlement pressure: Because legal defense costs $20,000–$40,000+ regardless of merit, most businesses settle for $5,000–$20,000 rather than fight. This makes ADA lawsuits a profitable business model for serial filers.
• Small businesses disproportionately affected: The Wall Street Journal documented a case where a small business settled an ADA lawsuit for $4,950 but paid $40,000 in legal fees — a devastating blow for a small company.

In Missouri, the problem became so acute that a single attorney — Kevin Puckett — filed 126 ADA lawsuits, contributing to a 143% increase in the state's federal filings (from 35 to 85 cases). This is the kind of abuse that's driving legislative reform across multiple states.

7. AI-Powered Lawsuits Accelerate the Crisis

The serial litigation problem is getting worse, not better — thanks to artificial intelligence. According to Seyfarth Shaw's analysis, confirmed at Deque's axe-con 2026 conference:

The AI-powered lawsuit pipeline works like this:

1. Identify a target: Automated crawlers scan websites for WCAG violations, identifying businesses with accessibility issues.
2. Generate the complaint: AI tools like ChatGPT draft ADA complaints that follow established legal templates.
3. File in court: The plaintiff files pro se (without an attorney), avoiding legal fees that would otherwise make the case uneconomical.
4. Generate motions: AI assists with procedural filings, discovery responses, and settlement demands.

For California businesses, this means the cost of being non-compliant is rising. More lawsuits, filed faster, by more plaintiffs, at lower cost. A 120-day cure period would give businesses a meaningful opportunity to respond before getting trapped in litigation — but only if they have the monitoring systems in place to fix issues quickly when notified.

For the full analysis of AI-powered ADA litigation, including tell-tale signs and court responses, see: ADA Lawsuits Up 40%: AI-Powered Pro Se Filings Reshape Accessibility Litigation.

8. The Disability Rights Perspective

It would be irresponsible to discuss ADA reform without acknowledging the perspective of the disability community. Not everyone sees cure laws as a positive development.

Arguments against SB 84:

• Delayed access to justice: Organizations like the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) argue that cure periods delay access to justice for people with genuine accessibility needs. A 120-day wait could mean four months of continued exclusion from a website or business.
• Reduced deterrence: The ACLU and other organizations contend that the threat of immediate litigation is what motivates businesses to be proactive about accessibility. Removing that threat could reduce compliance incentives.
• Repeat offender loopholes: Without careful drafting, cure laws could allow businesses to repeatedly violate the ADA, fix issues only when caught, and never invest in comprehensive compliance. The "fix it when sued" approach is cheaper than genuine accessibility.
• Chilling effect on legitimate claims: Adding procedural barriers to ADA enforcement may discourage people with disabilities from pursuing legitimate claims, particularly those without legal representation.

These concerns are legitimate and deserve serious consideration. The ideal outcome is legislation that curbs abusive serial litigation while preserving meaningful enforcement for people who genuinely face accessibility barriers. Whether SB 84 achieves that balance will depend on the specific language and amendments as it moves through the legislative process.

9. A National Legislative Movement

SB 84 doesn't exist in isolation. The current legislative landscape for ADA reform is the most active it's been in decades:

The simultaneous action across three states — plus federal movement — suggests that ADA litigation reform is reaching a tipping point. Whether California's version passes or not, the direction of travel is clear: more states are likely to introduce cure-period legislation in 2026 and beyond.

Meanwhile, the legal landscape is fracturing in the opposite direction too. Wisconsin courts have ruled that online-only stores must comply with the ADA (no physical location required), and Washington State's WLAD opens new litigation avenues that don't require proof of intentional discrimination. The net effect: more potential defendants facing lawsuits in more jurisdictions, with reform moving slowly.

10. Cost of Lawsuits vs. Cost of Compliance

Whether or not SB 84 passes, the economics of accessibility compliance are clear:

One prevented lawsuit — even a simple settlement — pays for 86 to 250 years of continuous monitoring. Under a cure-law framework like SB 84, the math becomes even more compelling: businesses that already have monitoring in place can respond to cure notices immediately, resolving issues within days rather than months.

The businesses best positioned to benefit from SB 84 are those that don't need 120 days — because they've been monitoring their accessibility all along and can fix issues quickly when notified.

11. What Businesses Should Do Now

Don't wait for SB 84 to pass. Whether California's right-to-cure law becomes reality or not, these steps protect your business today:

12. Frequently Asked Questions

13. Sources

1. Seyfarth Shaw — "ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Filings Fall Slightly to 8,667 in 2025" (Feb 2026)
2. Seyfarth Shaw — "Federal Pro Se ADA Title III Lawsuit Numbers Surge, Likely Powered by AI" (Oct 2025)
3. Courthouse News Service — "California SB 84: Right to Cure for ADA Violations" (Feb 2026)
4. Deque Systems — "Day One at Axe-con 2026" (Feb 2026)
5. Converge Accessibility — "Legal Update January 2026" (Jan 2026)
6. Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) — ADA Reform Position
7. Utah Legislature — SB 68: Abusive Website Access Litigation
8. Congress.gov — ADA 30 Days to Comply Act