California Is Choosing Lawsuits Over Solutions
California lawmakers had a choice this year: adopt meaningful ADA reform that protects disability rights while reducing abusive litigation or preserve a system that continues to enrich trial lawyers at the expense of small businesses.
Unfortunately, they chose the latter.
Senate Bill 84 offered a practical, balanced solution. It would have required that, for certain technical accessibility violations, a small business receive notice and a limited opportunity to correct the problem before being sued. If the business failed to act, the right to bring an ADA lawsuit remained intact. The bill did not weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act. It strengthened compliance by encouraging barriers to be removed quickly rather than allowing legal disputes to drag on for months or years. Instead, SB 84 was killed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Now the Legislature is advancing Assembly Bill 649, legislation that has been promoted as ADA reform but falls well short of addressing the real problem facing California's small businesses. While AB 649 expands certain protections for businesses that voluntarily obtain Certified Access Specialist (CASp) inspections, it does not create the meaningful notice-and-cure process that business owners have been asking for. For the overwhelming majority of small businesses, the threat of being sued first and fixing the issue later remains unchanged. That is not reform.
California continues to lead the nation in construction-related ADA lawsuits. Many involve technical violations that could be corrected in days if businesses were simply notified. Instead, business owners are often served with lawsuits before they even know a problem exists. Faced with the enormous cost of litigation, many settle regardless of the merits because hiring an attorney is simply too expensive.
The only people who consistently benefit from this system are the attorneys who have turned serial ADA litigation into a business model.
AB 649 does little to change those incentives. Rather than confronting the lawsuit-first approach that has burdened California employers for years, it largely preserves it. It asks businesses to navigate additional procedures while failing to provide the one protection that would make the greatest difference: a reasonable opportunity to fix minor violations before becoming defendants in court.
Most small business owners are not looking for loopholes. They are trying to keep their doors open, meet payroll, and serve every customer who walks through them. They want to comply with accessibility laws because it is the right thing to do. What they should not have to fear is becoming the next target of a lawsuit over an issue they would have gladly corrected if someone had simply told them about it.
The Legislature had an opportunity to pass legislation that would have promoted accessibility while reducing unnecessary litigation. Instead, it rejected SB 84 and is moving forward with a bill that gives the appearance of reform without solving the underlying problem.
California can—and should—do better.
If lawmakers truly want to improve accessibility, they should revive the principles embodied in SB 84: encourage compliance, remove barriers quickly, and reserve litigation for those who refuse to do the right thing. Until then, AB 649 will leave thousands of honest business owners exposed to the same costly lawsuits that have plagued California for decades.
That is bad public policy, bad for small businesses, and ultimately bad for California.