SB2090 creates the “Abusive Website-Access to Litigation Act,” a new Illinois law aimed at curbing lawsuits that allege website-access violations when the real purpose is said to be extracting settlement payments or attorney’s fees rather than fixing accessibility problems. The bill authorizes the Illinois Attorney General to bring a civil action in state court against the party, attorney, or law firm that filed the underlying website-access lawsuit, so a court can decide whether the case is abusive litigation.
The bill defines “access violation” broadly to include allegations that a public accommodation’s website fails to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or comparable state law, and it expressly includes websites operated by Illinois residents or entities doing business in the state. 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, the defendant’s size and resources, venue issues, settlement conduct, and whether sanctions are appropriate. The bill also creates a 30-day cure framework and a 90-day waiting period tied to notice or service before a court may determine abuse, with a rebuttable presumption of abuse if the defendant makes a good-faith effort to cure within 30 days and the litigation continues.
Impact
If enacted, SB2090 would add a new state-law mechanism for challenging certain website-access lawsuits and could deter serial ADA-style website litigation in Illinois by exposing plaintiffs, attorneys, or law firms to attorney’s fees and punitive damages up to three times the fee award if a case is found abusive. It would also give the Attorney General a direct enforcement role on behalf of Illinois residents or classes of residents sued over website-access claims. The bill would affect how website accessibility disputes are litigated in Illinois, especially for small businesses and other public accommodations with websites, while preserving the ability of people with disabilities to bring good-faith claims for equal access.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest strong support for limiting what sponsors describe as abusive or extortionate website-access litigation, particularly suits filed against smaller Illinois businesses without prior notice or a chance to cure. The legislative findings emphasize that meritorious disability-access claims should still be allowed, indicating an attempt to balance business protection with disability rights enforcement. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded debate or voting sentiment beyond the bill text itself.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between preventing abusive litigation and preserving enforcement of disability-access rights under the ADA and state law. Supporters of the bill would likely focus on serial filings, forum shopping, and settlement-driven lawsuits against small businesses, while opponents would likely argue that the bill could chill legitimate accessibility claims, create barriers to enforcement, or give defendants too much time and leverage to delay compliance. The bill’s rebuttable presumption after a 30-day cure period, the Attorney General’s authority to sue filing lawyers or firms, and the use of settlement information as a factor are all likely to be controversial.
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).