HR-8396-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ken Calvert (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to require that a person first send a written notice to a business owner identifying a specific accessibility barrier — physical or digital — and then wait up to 60 days for the owner to respond with a remediation plan, and another 60 days for the owner to make substantial progress, before filing a lawsuit. It would also direct the Department of Justice to create an education program for businesses on ADA compliance, direct the Judicial Conference to develop a mediation model for architectural barrier disputes, and require the Attorney General to study whether existing web accessibility standards (WCAG 2.0) and alternatives like phone-based access constitute reasonable accommodations.
Who benefits
Small business owners and property owners who currently face lawsuits with little or no prior warning, giving them an opportunity to fix violations before litigation. Website and app developers facing digital accessibility claims. Commercial landlords. Businesses in states without existing state-level notice-and-cure laws who currently have no pre-suit opportunity to remediate. Attorneys and mediators who would handle the new alternative dispute resolution process. Non-English-speaking business owners who would receive compliance materials in their primary language.
Who is hurt
People with disabilities who encounter access barriers and would face a longer, more procedurally complex path to legal relief — potentially months of delay before they can file suit. Disability rights advocacy organizations that rely on private enforcement litigation as a primary compliance mechanism. Plaintiffs' attorneys who specialize in ADA accessibility cases and whose caseloads could be reduced. Individuals who repeatedly encounter the same unaddressed barrier during the notice-and-cure waiting period. People with disabilities in states that already have stronger state-level protections, who may see federal standards weakened relative to current practice.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current ADA enforcement system has enabled a cottage industry of serial litigation in which a small number of plaintiffs' attorneys file hundreds of nearly identical demand letters targeting small businesses — often seeking quick cash settlements rather than actual barrier removal. They contend that a notice-and-cure period, already adopted in several states, demonstrably increases compliance while reducing unnecessary litigation costs, and that the bill's education and mediation provisions directly advance the ADA's core goal of access rather than punishment.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the ADA has required compliance since 1990, and that adding a pre-suit notice requirement rewards businesses that have had over three decades to remediate barriers by giving them yet another delay mechanism. They contend that people with disabilities — unlike other civil rights plaintiffs — would be uniquely burdened with procedural prerequisites not required under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and that during the waiting period, individuals with disabilities continue to be denied access to public accommodations with no legal recourse.