Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act
Summary
HB7328, titled the “Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act,” would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to create a new title governing consumer-facing websites and mobile applications owned or operated by private entities. The bill requires an individual to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil action alleging that a website or mobile app fails to comply with ADA Title III accessibility requirements.
Under the bill, a person must first notify the private owner or operator of the alleged noncompliance. If the issue is not corrected within 180 days, the person may file a complaint with the Department of Justice. The Attorney General would then have 360 days to investigate and determine whether a violation exists. A civil action could not begin until those administrative steps are completed, and a DOJ determination of compliance—or even the failure to make a determination within the 360-day period—would function as a final determination for purposes of litigation. The bill also defines “consumer facing website” and “mobile application” for these purposes and makes a clerical amendment to the ADA table of contents.
Impact
The bill would significantly change how ADA website-accessibility claims are brought against private businesses by adding a mandatory notice-and-administrative-review process before private lawsuits can proceed. It would affect Title III enforcement as applied to online commercial websites and mobile apps, likely delaying or limiting immediate litigation and shifting more initial enforcement responsibility to the Department of Justice. Businesses that operate public-facing digital platforms would gain additional procedural protections, while disability-rights plaintiffs would face new prerequisites before suing.
Sentiment
Based on the bill title and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a pro-small-business reform intended to curb what supporters characterize as abusive or predatory website-accessibility lawsuits. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the provided materials. The available context suggests the bill is likely to be viewed favorably by business interests and more skeptically by disability-access advocates, but the record provided does not show formal support or opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s requirement that individuals exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, which could be seen by supporters as reducing opportunistic litigation and by opponents as creating barriers to timely ADA enforcement. Another likely dispute is the 180-day waiting period and the 360-day DOJ investigation window, which may be criticized as too slow for accessibility violations affecting users with disabilities. The bill’s focus on websites and mobile applications also raises broader questions about how far ADA obligations should extend in the digital context and whether enforcement should rely on private litigation or federal administrative review.