RatedWithAI

RatedWithAI

Accessibility scanner

Free Scan

Legislative Update

Three States Push Back Against ADA Website Lawsuits: CA, GA & Federal Bills 2026

California, Georgia, and federal lawmakers introduced bills in February 2026 aimed at curbing "abusive" ADA website accessibility lawsuits. But California's AB 2190 goes further—it's the first state bill to explicitly target overlay vendors for false compliance claims. Here's what businesses and accessibility vendors need to know.

March 7, 2026•14 min read

The pattern is unmistakable: After years of rising ADA website lawsuit volumes (15,332 federal lawsuits since 2022, per Cox Media investigations), state and federal lawmakers are pushing back. Three bills introduced in February 2026—California AB 2190, Georgia HB 1470, and Federal HR 7328—aim to protect businesses from what legislators call "predatory" or "abusive" litigation.

But this legislative wave isn't just about protecting businesses. California's AB 2190 includes a groundbreaking provision: it holds accessibility vendors accountable for false compliance claims. This is the first state bill to explicitly target overlay companies and developers that promise "automatic compliance" or "lawsuit protection" without delivering actual accessibility.

⚠️ Critical Context: These bills are responses to real problems—serial plaintiffs, sue-and-settle business models, and vendor false advertising. But disability advocates argue that adding barriers to enforcement punishes people with disabilities for the behavior of a small subset of plaintiffs and vendors. The debate is: how do you stop abuse without undermining legitimate accessibility rights?

California AB 2190: Affirmative Defense + Vendor Liability

California Assembly Bill 2190, introduced February 19, 2026, amends the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California's state-level equivalent to the ADA for public accommodations) to create two major changes:

1. Affirmative Defense for Businesses

Under AB 2190, businesses can claim an affirmative defense in accessibility lawsuits based on specific website barriers if they:

  • • Publicly disclose the barrier and remediation steps in a digital accessibility report within a set period after receiving a written pre-lawsuit demand, OR
  • • Show a reasonable, good-faith belief that their site was accessible and were actively addressing issues when the lawsuit was filed

This is similar to California's previous attempts (like AB 1757 in 2023) to create "right to cure" or affirmative defense provisions. An affirmative defense doesn't block lawsuits—it gives businesses a legal argument in court that they acted in good faith.

2. Vendor Liability for False Compliance Claims

Here's the groundbreaking part: AB 2190 prohibits "resource service providers" (developers, vendors, overlay companies) from:

  • • Negligently, recklessly, or knowingly creating or maintaining inaccessible web resources
  • • Falsely claiming they meet accessibility standards

The bill allows small business entities and public prosecutors (including the California Attorney General) to enforce these prohibitions against vendors.

Why This Matters: For years, overlay companies have promised "automatic compliance" and "lawsuit protection" without delivering actual accessibility. The FTC fined accessiBe $1 million in April 2025 for false advertising. California AB 2190 would give businesses and prosecutors legal tools to sue vendors that mislead them. If this passes, it could reshape the entire accessibility vendor industry.

The question: Are they targeting web developers who build inaccessible sites, or overlay manufacturers who falsely claim their widgets provide compliance? Likely both—but the overlay industry is the primary target given the FTC precedent and widespread vendor false advertising.

Georgia HB 1470: Anti-Abusive Litigation Law

Georgia House Bill 1470, introduced February 26, 2026 by four Republican and one Democratic state legislator, takes a different approach: it creates a new state cause of action against "abusive website access litigation".

What Is "Abusive" Litigation?

Under HB 1470, abusive litigation is defined as lawsuits "asserting a website access violation for the primary purpose of obtaining a payment from the defendant due to the costs of defending against such proceeding in court."

Courts would consider factors such as:

  • • The number of similar suits filed by the same plaintiff without making genuine efforts to resolve accessibility issues
  • • Whether the business made good-faith efforts to fix alleged barriers within 30 days of notice

If a business makes good-faith efforts to fix barriers within 30 days of notice, subsequent litigation is presumed abusive (a rebuttable presumption—meaning the plaintiff can still argue otherwise, but must overcome the presumption).

What Happens to Plaintiffs Found to Have Filed Abusive Suits?

If a plaintiff is found to have engaged in abusive litigation, defendants can recover:

  • • Damages
  • • Attorney's fees
  • • Punitive awards

Additionally, the Georgia Attorney General can intervene, seek injunctions, impose civil penalties, and issue investigative demands for evidence.

Reality Check: Georgia's approach mirrors Missouri HB 1674 (filed December 2025) and Utah SB 68 (filed January 2026). The pattern: states with high ADA lawsuit volumes are creating state-level remedies to sue plaintiffs and attorneys who file "abusive" suits. This is unprecedented—no prior state has successfully enacted laws allowing defendants to countersue plaintiffs.

Federal HR 7328: Administrative Exhaustion Requirement

On February 2, 2026, Representative Sam Graves (R-Mo.) introduced HR 7328, titled the "Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act." This federal bill would amend the ADA itself to require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing civil lawsuits over inaccessible consumer-facing websites or mobile apps.

How Would It Work?

Under HR 7328, plaintiffs must:

  • • Provide notice to the website or app owner
  • • Wait through structured administrative and DOJ review periods
  • • Only then can they proceed to court

This would give businesses a chance to address compliance issues before facing court claims.

Will It Pass?

Unlikely. As Converge Accessibility notes in their February 2026 Legal Update:

"Past attempts to build in administrative burdens into the ADA have failed and there's no reason to think that this effort won't fail as well."

Why? Because the ADA has always allowed private rights of action—individuals can sue directly without going through administrative channels. Adding exhaustion requirements would fundamentally change the law's enforcement mechanism, which disability advocates (and courts) have consistently opposed.

The Pattern: Business Protection vs. Enforcement

These three bills—California AB 2190, Georgia HB 1470, and Federal HR 7328—are part of a larger legislative pattern across states with high ADA website lawsuit volumes:

  • • California AB 2190 (Feb 19, 2026): Affirmative defense + vendor liability
  • • Georgia HB 1470 (Feb 26, 2026): Anti-abusive litigation cause of action
  • • Federal HR 7328 (Feb 2, 2026): Administrative exhaustion before lawsuits
  • • Missouri HB 1674 (Dec 2025): AG can sue attorneys for abusive litigation
  • • Utah SB 68 (Jan 2026): Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation

All five bills were introduced within three months (December 2025–February 2026), suggesting coordinated legislative strategy or business lobbying.

The Business Case: Why Lawmakers Are Acting Now

From the business perspective, these bills address real problems:

1. Serial Plaintiffs and Sue-and-Settle Business Models

Cox Media's Boston 25 and KIRO 7 investigations documented 15,332 federal ADA website lawsuits filed since 2022. Key findings:

  • • 90% of lawsuits filed by just 16 law firms
  • • Plaintiffs paid $500 per settlement, attorneys collect $3,000–$10,000+
  • • Victor Ariza (Miami) filed 383 lawsuits alone
  • • Sara Campbell sued 3x despite compliance efforts between suits

2. Vendor False Advertising

Accessibility overlay companies (like accessiBe, AudioEye, UserWay) have marketed their widgets as providing "automatic compliance" and "lawsuit protection." The FTC found this to be false advertising and fined accessiBe $1 million in April 2025.

Businesses that relied on these vendor promises are now being sued anyway. California AB 2190's vendor liability provision directly addresses this problem.

3. Small Business Impact

The typical ADA website lawsuit settlement costs $6,500–$15,000 in legal fees and settlement amounts. For small businesses, this is devastating. The Gainesville, Florida investigation found 50 small businesses sued by a single plaintiff—restaurants, bakeries, seafood markets—none of which had the resources to defend themselves.

The Disability Advocate Perspective: Why These Bills Are Dangerous

Disability rights advocates argue these bills punish people with disabilities for the behavior of a small subset of plaintiffs and vendors:

1. Administrative Exhaustion Is a Barrier to Justice

Federal HR 7328's administrative exhaustion requirement would delay access to justice. If a blind user encounters an inaccessible checkout process and can't complete a purchase, they would need to:

  • • Submit notice to the business
  • • Wait through DOJ review periods (which could take months or years given DOJ staffing)
  • • Only then file a lawsuit

By the time litigation is allowed, the barrier may have already cost the plaintiff lost time, money, and dignity.

2. "Abusive Litigation" Definitions Are Too Broad

Georgia HB 1470 defines abusive litigation as suits filed "for the primary purpose of obtaining payment." But proving someone's "primary purpose" is subjective. A plaintiff who files multiple lawsuits may be doing so because they encounter multiple inaccessible sites—not because they're seeking payments.

3. Good-Faith Efforts Are Undefined

Both AB 2190 and HB 1470 reference businesses making "good-faith efforts" to fix accessibility issues. But what qualifies as good faith? Installing an overlay widget (which doesn't actually fix barriers)? Hiring a developer to start work (without completing it)? The vagueness creates loopholes.

The Core Tension: Businesses want protection from abusive lawsuits and false vendor promises. Disability advocates want accountability and enforcement. The question is whether these bills strike the right balance—or whether they throw out legitimate accessibility rights to solve vendor and plaintiff abuse problems.

What Should Businesses Do Right Now?

Whether or not these bills pass, here's what businesses should do:

1. Don't Wait for Legislation to Protect You

These bills may not pass. Even if they do, they won't retroactively block existing lawsuits or eliminate your accessibility obligations. The best defense is actual compliance.

2. Use Free Scanners to Identify Barriers Now

RatedWithAI's free accessibility scanner provides instant WCAG 2.1 Level AA analysis. No signup required. See your score, top issues, and a roadmap to compliance in under 60 seconds. Document your scanning and remediation efforts—courts look favorably on businesses that were actively addressing accessibility when sued.

3. Avoid Overlay Widgets

If California AB 2190 passes with vendor liability provisions, overlay companies that falsely promise compliance could face lawsuits from businesses and prosecutors. The FTC already fined accessiBe $1 million for false advertising. Don't rely on widgets—fix the underlying code.

4. Create a Digital Accessibility Report

California AB 2190's affirmative defense requires businesses to publicly disclose barriers and remediation steps. Even if the bill doesn't pass, creating a public accessibility statement shows good faith and transparency.

5. Monitor Legislative Developments

These bills are in early stages (introduced but not yet passed). Track:

Frequently Asked Questions

What is California AB 2190 and how does it affect accessibility vendors?

AB 2190 (introduced Feb 19, 2026) amends California's Unruh Civil Rights Act to create an affirmative defense for businesses that disclose barriers and remediation steps. The groundbreaking provision: it prohibits 'resource service providers' (developers, vendors, overlay companies) from negligently or knowingly creating inaccessible web resources or falsely claiming they meet accessibility standards. Small businesses and the California AG can enforce these rules against vendors.

What is Georgia HB 1470 and what does it do?

Georgia HB 1470 (introduced Feb 26, 2026) creates a new state cause of action against 'abusive website access litigation'—defined as lawsuits filed primarily to extract payment rather than fix accessibility issues. If a business makes good-faith efforts to fix barriers within 30 days of notice, subsequent litigation is presumed abusive. Defendants in abusive suits can recover damages, attorney's fees, and punitive awards. The Georgia Attorney General can intervene and impose civil penalties.

What is Federal HR 7328 and how would it change ADA lawsuits?

HR 7328 (introduced Feb 2, 2026), titled the 'Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act,' would amend the ADA to require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing civil lawsuits over inaccessible websites or mobile apps. Plaintiffs must provide notice to the business, then wait through administrative and DOJ review periods before litigation can proceed. This mirrors state-level efforts but operates at the federal level.

Why is California AB 2190 targeting overlay vendors specifically?

AB 2190 is the first state bill to explicitly hold accessibility vendors accountable for false compliance claims. After years of overlay companies promising 'automatic compliance' and 'lawsuit protection' (see the FTC's $1 million fine against accessiBe in April 2025), California lawmakers are creating legal liability for vendors that mislead businesses. This could fundamentally reshape the accessibility industry.

Will these bills actually pass?

Unknown. Past federal attempts to add administrative burdens to ADA lawsuits have failed. California has attempted similar business-protection bills before (like AB 1757) that didn't pass. Georgia's HB 1470 is newer territory. The political climate in 2026 (with rising lawsuit volumes and business pressure) may create momentum, but disability advocates strongly oppose any measures that weaken enforcement.

What's the difference between affirmative defense and administrative exhaustion?

An affirmative defense (CA AB 2190) means a business can still be sued, but can argue in court that they acted in good faith. Administrative exhaustion (HR 7328) blocks lawsuits entirely until the plaintiff completes administrative steps (notice, waiting periods, DOJ review). Affirmative defenses are weaker protections but more likely to survive legal challenges.

What should businesses do while these bills are pending?

Don't wait for legislation to protect you. Fix your accessibility issues now. Use free scanners (like RatedWithAI) to identify barriers, prioritize high-impact fixes, and document your efforts. If you're sued, courts often look favorably on businesses that were actively addressing accessibility—regardless of whether these bills pass.

Are there other states considering similar bills?

Yes. Missouri HB 1674 (filed December 2025) targets abusive litigation, Utah SB 68 (filed January 2026) creates similar anti-abusive provisions, and California has a history of attempting business-protection bills (AB 1757 in 2023). The pattern: states with high lawsuit volumes are exploring legislative remedies to balance accessibility enforcement with business protections.

Ready to see where your site stands? Use our free accessibility scanner to get an instant WCAG 2.1 Level AA analysis. No signup required. See your score, top issues, and a roadmap to compliance in under 60 seconds. Don't wait for legislation—fix your accessibility issues now.

Sources & Further Reading