SB1942 creates the Stop Abusive Website Access Litigation Act, a new Illinois law aimed at lawsuits alleging website access violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The bill allows the Attorney General, and also any Illinois resident subject to such litigation, to bring a civil action in state court asking a judge to decide whether the underlying lawsuit is “abusive litigation.”
The bill defines website access claims as allegations that a public accommodation, including a website operated by an Illinois resident, does not provide sufficient ADA access. In deciding whether a case is abusive, the court must look at the totality of the circumstances and may consider factors such as repeated similar filings, prior frivolous or abusive litigation, whether the plaintiff gave the business a chance to fix the issue, the defendant’s size and resources, venue concerns, and whether the filer is an Illinois resident or licensed Illinois lawyer. If the court finds the litigation abusive, it may award attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant and punitive damages up to three times the fee award.
Impact
If enacted, SB1942 would add a new state-law mechanism for challenging certain ADA website-access lawsuits as abusive, potentially affecting plaintiffs, attorneys, law firms, and businesses facing web accessibility claims. It would create rebuttable presumptions tied to notice-and-cure periods: a good-faith cure within 90 days after notice or service can support a presumption that later litigation is abusive, while failure to correct the alleged violation within 180 days limits when the court may make that finding. The bill also gives weight to an Attorney General determination that a case is not abusive, creating a presumption against abuse in that circumstance.
Sentiment
The bill’s title and structure suggest a generally pro-defendant, anti-abusive-litigation policy approach, especially aimed at serial or settlement-driven website accessibility suits. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to respond to concerns from businesses and defendants facing repeated ADA website claims, while still preserving a process for courts to evaluate whether a case is truly abusive.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between deterring meritless or extortionate website-access lawsuits and preserving enforcement of ADA accessibility rights. Supporters would likely emphasize repeated filings, forum selection, and settlement pressure on small businesses, while critics may argue the bill could chill legitimate disability-access litigation and make it harder for people with disabilities to enforce website accessibility standards. The notice-and-cure presumptions, the focus on the filer’s history and venue, and the authority to award punitive damages against the initiating party, attorney, or law firm are likely to be the most debated provisions.
Establishes the "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation" which establishes provisions relating to litigation alleging certain disability access violations
Drains: appeals; period to appeal apportionment or assessment costs on drain projects; modify. Amends secs. 72 & 72a of 1956 PA 40 (MCL 280.72 & 280.72a).