ADA Lawsuits in California: What’s Happening at the Capitol Right Now (as of July 10, 2026)
- Corey Taylor
- Jul 10
- 3 min read
California is the hotspot for ADA and disability‑access lawsuits, especially against small businesses. Lawmakers in Sacramento are under pressure from both disability advocates and business groups to change how these cases work.
Why ADA Lawsuits Are Such a Big Deal in California
Under federal law (the ADA), plaintiffs can get injunctions and attorney’s fees, but no automatic money damages. In California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act adds statutory damages—usually at least $4,000 per visit plus fees—which makes every physical barrier or inaccessible website a costly litigation risk.
Over the last decade, this has led to:
High volumes of “serial filer” cases against small businesses.
Frequent suits over very technical violations, sometimes involving fractions of an inch or missing accessibility features online.
Strong pushback from business and tort‑reform groups calling many claims “shakedown” or “drive‑by” lawsuits.
Past Reforms: SB 1186 and CASp Incentives
The Legislature has already tried to curb abuses while still enforcing access rights. Key past changes include:
SB 1186 (2012): reduced statutory damages when businesses quickly fix construction‑related barriers and banned “demand for money” letters in pre‑suit notices.
Requirements for detailed pre‑litigation letters describing each barrier so owners can identify and correct them.
Incentives to use Certified Access Specialists (CASp), including lease disclosures stating whether a property has been inspected.
These reforms didn’t stop ADA/Unruh lawsuits, but they made it easier for businesses that act in good faith to reduce exposure once they know about violations.
The New Fight: “Right to Cure” vs. Long‑Term Safe Harbor
Right now, lawmakers are debating how much time small businesses should get to fix problems before facing statutory‑damage lawsuits.
Two main approaches are on the table:
SB 84 (Niello) – 120‑Day “Fix‑It‑First” Window
Applies to small businesses with 50 or fewer employees.
Before suing for statutory damages, a plaintiff must send a detailed letter listing each alleged accessibility violation.
The business then has 120 days to correct every cited issue; if it does, it owes no statutory damages, plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, or costs for those items.
Lawsuits for injunctions (orders to fix barriers) would still be allowed, but the money‑damages incentive is removed when owners cure within the window.
Competing Assembly Bill – Up to Six Years of Protection
The Assembly Judiciary Committee rejected SB 84 procedurally and advanced a different bill that requires businesses to be more proactive.
Under that bill, businesses that invest in inspections, correct identified violations, and keep up with fixes can receive up to six years of “safe harbor” from repeat ADA/Unruh suits on those same conditions.
It pushes owners to spend more upfront on accessibility audits and remediation in exchange for longer‑term lawsuit protection.
In short: SB 84 focuses on giving small businesses a fair warning and a 120‑day cure period; the Assembly’s bill focuses on rewarding owners who make a larger, proactive investment in compliance for multi‑year protection.
What This Means for Small Businesses
If either approach becomes law, small businesses will still have to comply with accessibility standards—but the process and timing of lawsuits would change.
More notice, less surprise: Owners would get detailed letters explaining problems before a statutory‑damages suit can move forward.
Clear cure windows: Fixing barriers within 120 days (SB 84) or within the required remediation plan (Assembly bill) could dramatically reduce or eliminate statutory damages.
Stronger incentives to be proactive: Businesses that schedule accessibility inspections, address CBC 11B and ADA technical requirements, and keep documentation current stand to gain the most protection.
Why It Matters for Accessibility Professionals and CASp Inspectors
Legislative reforms do not change the underlying technical standards—you still measure and evaluate against:
2022 CBC Chapter 11B first, then
2010 ADA Standards, then
1991 ADAAG and ABA Standards where applicable.
What does change is how your work is used:
CASp inspections and reports become key evidence for owners to qualify for reduced damages or extended safe harbor periods.
Clear, accurate documentation of dimensions, slopes, and accessible routes—plus remediation timelines—will be central to proving that a business cured violations within the required window.
With some analyses showing that the vast majority of defendants lack any CASp inspection when sued, new safe‑harbor rules may push more owners to engage CASp professionals early, before a claim hits.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified attorney or consultant for advice tailored to your situation.