S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments: transcript

Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee, Jan 27, 2026

1. Committee chair (presiding)55:14

   All right. Senator Brammer.

2. Sen. Brady Brammer55:15

   Okay. So this is a bill to get out ahead of an issue that's happening nationally. Um, if, if any of you recall from a few years ago there were some a DA lawsuits that got a little out of hand in Utah, um, and my colleague here will talk a little bit about that. Uh, but what's happened on this is this deals with websites and accessibility for Americans with disabilities involving websites. Now, we certainly want Americans with disabilities to, to be able to have websites that they can use and that help them. Uh, but what we're, what this is about is, and really functionally what it does is it gives a, uh, a safe harbor period where once someone is notified that their website is noncompliant with a DA requirements, it gives them 30 or 60 days depending on the situation to make, to make the fixes that are needed before somebody sues them. Um, and then it also has some fairly harsh penalties when there is abuse of litigation related to this. And the reason why that's become an issue is, is particularly in California and Florida, but in a lot of places throughout the nation, uh, what they're, what's happened is there's AI bots that go into websites, find out any that are non a DA compliant, and then they, they do mass litigation in federal courts on all of these businesses. And oftentimes they're businesses that are just starting. Um, it's not something where we're trying to make it impossible to, to sue. If somebody's not fixing their website, then they can bring their a DA suit. There's attorney's fees, there's real penalties, and we want to avoid that. But we also wanna make sure that businesses are not, uh, in a, in a position where they are being abused by, uh, essentially fairly aggressive plaintiff's attorneys or overly aggressive plaintiff's attorneys.

3. Committee chair (presiding)57:07

   So, I'll turn it over. Go Ahead. Thank you. Please tell us your name. Thank

4. Samuel McHenry, Assistant Attorney General, Utah Attorney General's Office57:11

   You. Senator Vickers Samuel McHenry with the, uh, Utah Attorney Generals. I'm the Assistant Attorney General as Senator Brammer, uh, noted. I, I do have a little bit of experience in this area. In 2017, there were, there were three local attorneys who filed somewhere in the three, 400, uh, lawsuits in federal court, uh, on a DA lawsuits. Uh, most of them were very minor violations, like, uh, the height of a sign, uh, indicating a van accessible parking stall, uh, minor infractions like that. Uh, easily remedied. And I think this, like, uh, Senator Brammer said this safe harbor, uh, is, is a great thing to get, you know, 30 days to start trying to get this fixed. 90 days to have it done, uh, Erda a's a great, a great, uh, act federal act and we totally support it, but we're trying to get ahead of the curb and, uh, and stop these frivolous lawsuits. Uh, it, it really, I know my personal knowledge, it did hurt a lot of businesses when, when those were coming around, they couldn't afford to, uh, hire attorneys to defend them. And they basically, uh, paid the ransom note. Well, and, and if you recall in that instance, they were putting confidentiality clauses on the amount paid and then, uh, demanding that nobody ever talk about the settlement with anyone, including the Attorney General's office. And it, it turned into a big mess. And so we're just trying to get ahead of some of those issues. At the risk of inserting myself into your presentation, I I just wanna add that when the a DA was passed in the early nineties, um, they, they included a private right of action as an an enforcement mechanism. I think that was one of the first times Congress did that on such major legislation. And this was under Bill Clinton. Um, but it's been, um, reprehensible and somewhat disgusting to me to watch some attorneys who are not trying to help, um, disabled people. They're just trying to pad their own pockets and they'll go into businesses and, uh, flag violations and try to shake them down for five or $10,000. They don't have any interest in having the violations remedied or repaired. And it's not as if a soap dispenser or a sink that's one inch too high or one inch too low is going to actually harm somebody. It's more just about, Hey, here's an easy way for us to make money. So is this what we're talking about today? It is. And you can tell I don't have any feelings about this at all. Well, and with that, we'll end our Presentation. Thank You.

5. Committee chair (presiding)59:50

   Okay. Alright. If you really, if you wanna continue, please go on.

6. Samuel McHenry, Assistant Attorney General, Utah Attorney General's Office59:53

   No, I, we, we've finished covering what we need to cover and now with ai they can do it with websites. And again, yeah. With no intent to help the actual disabled, just an intent to pad their own pockets. So. Okay.

7. Committee chair (presiding)1:00:05

   Are there any clarifying questions for the presenters? See none. Let me ask by a show of hands, either in person or online if there's, uh, individuals who'd like to testify for or against this bill. Alright. We have one and two online. And two online. So we'll give each of you two minutes. So we only need one of you to vacate 'cause there's only one in person. Or you can both vacate. That's fine. Please tell us your name and in the organization that you're representing. Uh, uh,

8. Nate Crippes, Disability Law Center1:00:36

   Good afternoon committee members. Nate Cris with the Disability Law Center. Um, I, I appreciate the presentation. And, and, and Senator Weiler, I agree with a lot of what you've said about some of the lawsuits that have been brought. And I, I wanna be clear, we, we, we don't support those. We, our, our lawsuits are always genuinely trying to, to remedy an issue. Um, I think we just wanna say we do have a little bit of concern about this having a chilling effect. And we, we don't want anyone to feel like they can't bring a lawsuit. I've had conversations with the sponsor as well as the Attorney General's office. They assure us that's not the case, but just wanna be on the record with that concern that, that that could be a problem. And we just wanna make sure that that doesn't happen. And we, we, And that's legitimate because there are some actual legitimate reasons to file lawsuits, not just trying to pad somebody's pocket. And that's all we wanna make sure is that people still can do that. And I, I know that is the intent. Um, we just, we, you know, with with legislation like this, we fear it could lead to people being afraid to bring those. And we, we wanna avoid that. Thank, that's all. Thank you very.

9. Committee chair (presiding)1:01:24

   Thank you. Thank you very much. That that is very helpful feedback. Okay. We'll go to Audrey, Audrey Baron. Uh, Audrey, I need you to turn on your camera and I need you to tell us your name and even though I just said it, and tell us what county you reside in.

10. Audrey Baron, attorney1:01:41

    Sure. Hi, my name's Audrey Baron. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you. Um, I reside in Salt Lake City. I'm out of state for work right now, which is why I'm appearing remotely. I'm actually here to testify about a different bill. Um, but I am an attorney and I do some disability work. I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer. I have no, no dog in this fight. But I wanted to point out, um, that the a DA is a federal law and state law can't, cannot regulate federal law and the private right of action for people to bring claims in federal court. So I'm just curious if the sponsors have done the legal research on preemption and what the plan is with that. Is the idea to create a state cause of action for, um, business owners to bring an affirmative lawsuit if they feel that an a DA claim was brought wrongly, or, I, I don't really understand how someone who brings an a DA claim in federal court, um, could use this state law as a defense in those claims. So, sorry for the technical lawyer

11. Committee chair (presiding)1:02:42

    Question. Thank, thank you Audrey. And, um, you are correct on your assessment. Um, and I'll ask the sponsor if he's interested, um, to answer that in his summation. And then, um, thank you. So, uh, stay tuned. Um, and then, um, our, our last, uh, public commenter on this bill will be Everett Bacon. Um, please, um, turn on your camera and tell us your name and what county you reside in.

12. Everett Bacon, President, National Federation of the Blind of Utah1:03:10

    So, I, I'm, I, my name is Everett Bacon. I, uh, I am assuming my camera's on, I'm blind. It Is, it is. Thank you. Okay, good. Um, so basically, um, I am president of the National Federation of the Blind of Utah. And, uh, I'm here in Washington, DC with, uh, 10 of my members. And we're speaking out on lots of different things. And, uh, there is a national bill, uh, the website, software applications and Mobile Accessibility Act that would deal with, with this very issue on behalf of blind individuals. What our biggest concern is, is what, uh, Nate Cribb brought up with legitimately being able to file, uh, suits like this when a, uh, websites are not accessible. Um, and right now there's over 200 million websites, uh, and only 4,000 of them are cases that are related to, uh, accessibility. Uh, and so there's just not a, a lot of, uh, lawsuits, uh, with regards to actual website, uh, ma you know, accessibility. And that's, uh, part of the big issue for us is that we're afraid this is going to really make it difficult for us to file lawsuits, uh, for websites and mobile applications. We think the Department of Justice can promulgate rulemaking for this. Um, and, uh, and so that's what I wanted to bring attention. I mean, you think about how many websites, blind individuals and cited individual are using every day for every single thing. Shopping, uh, getting food, uh, getting on work, uh, finding employment, all of those types of things. Accessibility is a big deal. And, uh, and, and so it, it, it's a, a big issue that faces many of us. And that's what I wanted to bring to your attention.

13. Committee chair (presiding)1:04:54

    Thank you. Thank you very much, uh, for commenting. And, um, I'm gonna close the public hearing and then invite Senator Brammer to, um, respond to those questions if he so chooses. So Senator Brammer?

14. Sen. Brady Brammer1:05:07

    Yeah, no, I, I think the concern about any chilling effect on the A DAI, I think that's something that we should definitely pay attention to and, and keep an eye on, you know, at, at the same time, we're balancing it with the chilling effect on, on businesses that are legitimately trying to do it, uh, do it the right way and just didn't know about, you know, whether that their website was accessible or not, which is not, um, you know, that that can happen. Uh, in terms of whether or not this is preempted by federal law. The A DA can be, uh, lawsuits related to the a DA can be regulated by state law. In this case it is, uh, creating a cause of action if the trier fi of fact finds that the lawsuit was abusive, meaning that they were not doing it with the intent to try to remedy the issue. But instead, rather than creating remedies and making life better for people with disabilities, it's actually just a moneymaking scheme by a plaintiff's firm. And so that's, that, that's who we're trying to capture. And, and I don't think, tho, I don't think that I, the moneymaking schemes by plaintiff's firms are not helping the disability community. That's the, that's the problem. And that has been an abusive litigation tactic in the past. And so this is targeting the litigation abusive, and it still allows for, uh, for not only rec receipt of notice that a website is not compliant with the Erda A but it also allows for a lawsuit if they don't actually fix it in short order. Yeah, and I would go one step further. I think that the frivolous cash lining attempts to extort business owners actually hurts the disability community because it breeds contempt, um, for that population unnecessarily. So that's how I've always felt about those lawsuits.

15. Committee chair (presiding)1:06:55

    So, thank you. Um, let's bring it back to the committee for, um, action. Are there any questions or Senator Brammer, would you like to make a motion? Sure.

16. Sen. Brady Brammer1:07:04

    I'll move that. We recommend favorably SB 68. We have a motion favorably recommend SB 68 to the floor of the Senate.

17. Committee chair (presiding)1:07:13

    Any discussion to that motion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Material of that passage? Unanimously, unanimously.

House Judiciary Committee, Feb 25, 2026

1. Committee chair (presiding)53:41

   We'll start with SB 68 disability litigation amendments from Senator Brammer. The time is yours, sir. Oh, sorry. There we go. There we go.

2. Sen. Brady Brammer53:52

   Uh, this is just mostly to get out ahead of, um, what we've seen as some abusive litigation in other states, particularly Florida and California's where we've seen these cases. Uh, the attorney general's office came to me and asked that I help them with this. Uh, what's what's happening is, um, websites typically have to have a level of a DA compliance so that people can access them, that, that struggle to access them. That's appropriate. We want them, we want businesses to come into compliance with that. Uh, what this does is the, the real meat of it is before a law firm can sue on an a DA compliance issue for websites, they need to give a 30 or 45 day, depending on the situation, ability for the, the website to come into compliance before they sue. Um, you know, there are, and, and what's been happening essentially is they do ai, AI bots that scan websites and then they do the same suit over and over and over again, and they just, they threaten it or file it all over the place and try to extort money. And we want to give businesses the ability to say, Hey, look, we complied and now you can't sue me because they came into compliance. It's never like nobody's out there saying, I demand to have a website without a DA compliance. They built a website 'cause they started a small business and they just didn't know they were, they weren't in compliance or that they had to be in compliance. And they get a letter and we'd like to give them the opportunity to fix that before they move on. So with that, uh, I'm open to any questions. Excellent.

3. Committee chair (presiding)55:26

   Thank you. Senator Brammer, we have two committee members with questions. We'll first go to Representative Grant Millard.

4. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller55:33

   Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so my question, um, regards whether or not this actually would preempt the a DA rule. 'cause my understanding is the a DA doesn't have this provision. Um, do we have the authority to limit the scope and allow for a remedy period? Um, and if we don't, would run the risk of, of further litigation and, and forcing the, the defendant, in this case, the small business owner, uh, to have to incur more attorney's Fees. Yeah. So, so

5. Sen. Brady Brammer56:04

   you're al I I think what you're getting to is, is this preempted by the A A DA and this type of, uh, this type of regulation of allowing someone to come into compliance. If we were to say, you cannot enforce the Erda A in Utah, you would be right. We could not do that. But where this is saying, Hey, you need to allow compliance before you bring your suit, a 30 to 45 day delay to bringing suit is not preempted by the a DA. We can control the, the state government of enforcement or the, the state process of enforcement for a DA, uh, without running afoul of, of these, this has been done in other states as well. It's held up. It's, it's not an overly uh, you know, it really comes down to are you trying to accomplish the goals here or are you trying to, this, this wasn't, this was never meant to be a giveaway to aggressive plaintiff's firms. Um, as opposed to let's get websites in compliance for a DA and so we can, yes.

6. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller57:04

   Okay. That clarifies my question. Thank you.

7. Committee chair (presiding)57:07

   Thank you, Representative Miller. We'll go to Representative Acton.

8. Rep. Cheryl K. Acton57:10

   Oh, thank you. I just wondered, how could a website not be accessible? Is it font size or audio, or what?

9. Sen. Brady Brammer57:17

   Yeah, so there's different ways. So if, if you're, if a person is deaf, the website needs to be readable. So there's oftentimes tools that they can go in and read the, read the site for a person who is deaf, uh, or if they are, um, uh, or if, sorry, if they are, uh, if they're blind, it needs to be, um, it can be translated to audio. Um, there, there's various methods depending on the disability. And, and as far as the details of what you have to do to bring it into compliance, most of the, the website, you know, creators, um, you know, there's a few website that, a few websites that a lot of a lot of businesses use, they do have a default that what they do is automatically a DA compliant. Um, but it can vary. And I don't have the, the specific details of, of compliance. It hasn't been overly burdensome for people to make their sites compliant. Um, there's tools that help you do that. Um, but this isn't necessarily getting into how to do it. It's just saying you need a little bit of time to get there.

10. Rep. Cheryl K. Acton58:23

    Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

11. Committee chair (presiding)58:25

    Thank you Representative Acton. See no further lights. We'll go to the public for public comm.

12. Committee chair (presiding)58:29

    Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak to this bill? We have one in the room. Mr. Crits from Disability Law Center. Come on up, sir. And then do we have anyone online? No, no one online. Okay. Thank you, sir. The time is yours.

13. Nate Crippes, Attorney, Disability Law Center58:43

    Good Morning Committee members. Um, I just wanna share a couple of concerns we have, uh, with this bill. Uh, one, um, you know, I, I understand we're trying to get out in front of a problem, um, but I don't think we do, uh, have a problem in this state. Um, I think one of the reasons you've seen this come up in, in other states that, that were mentioned is they actually have, um, state level laws that make this, uh, more, uh, make it easier to make money, um, off of these type of cases. I understand there was an attorney who was filing a number of, not website, but Title three, uh, a DA claimed a few years ago. And my understanding is he stopped 'cause it just wasn't a, a money making scheme. He felt he could really, um, um, live with. So, um, I I, I'm not sure that this is a problem we need to to address at the moment. Um, that being said, um, a a couple other things. One, I worry about a chilling effect that this could have if you're allowing either the attorney General's office or, um, uh, the defending party to file a lawsuit against, uh, say for us, a client of ours or even us, um, if we bring one of these lawsuits. And so we worry that people would be afraid to step forward. Um, and, and third, um, I, I think the, to the, the question earlier about, um, whether this is, um, permissible under the A DA, um, I'm not sure I would view it the same way, uh, respectfully as as Senator Brammer. Um, I think one of the things I would say is ultimately, um, the Erda a does not require, so federal law doesn't require you to give notice to somebody. Um, there have been attempts to pass that legislation, the federal level. It, it has not passed to this time. Um, and so ultimately my belief is that if I had a client come to me with a website concern, um, I could file that lawsuit. Um, and, um, the state wouldn't be able to say, well, you didn't give the opportunity for this person to cure. Um, and under this bill, um, there is a rebuttable presumption that my lawsuit is abusive because I didn't do that. Um, and my concern would be there that ultimately, so let's say they filed that lawsuit against us saying, Nope, you, you filed an abusive lawsuit. I would rebut that by saying, well, the Erda A does not require me to give you that. And I think that's a, a reasonable rebuttal that might get me to a point where, where I prevail. But now I have a retaliation claim, um, which is a violation of the A DA against the person who filed that lawsuit against me. Now I have more claims and potentially more attorney's fees that I could, uh, get for that. And so my concern is that if the ags do this, you could see actually the ags having to pay more, um, in attorney's fees if they file these lawsuits. So I'm not really sure that it actually solves the problem. I think it might incentivize people to, to file lawsuits. 'cause if you file a lawsuit now, you might get somebody to sue you and you might get a retaliation claim. Um, and so ultimately, um, I'm not sure this is the best way to solve this problem. I think in our view, it would be better to in, um, you know, educate businesses and give more information and try and help businesses come into compliance with the Erda a rather than, uh, focusing on preventing litigation. Thank you for your time.

14. Committee chair (presiding)1:01:12

    Thank you, sir. Okay. So if there's no one else in, in the public and no one, no one online, we'll come back to the Committee for Action on SB 68 from Senator Brammer. I don't see any substitutes online. Senator, Representative Hawkins

15. Rep. Jon Hawkins1:01:35

    Reluctantly, but then no, I move that we, uh, favorably recommend SB 68.

16. Committee chair (presiding)1:01:40

    That motion's in order. Would you like to speak to it? No. All right. We'll go back to the sponsor of the legislation.

17. Sen. Brady Brammer1:01:46

    Senator Brammer. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, this, this is not, uh, in any way undercutting the Erda A I guess if the, what we're trying to do is just give people the ability to come into compliance before they have a lawsuit filed against them. Um, you know, we had this problem in Utah related to other a DA compliance, and we had to go through a lot to deal with it as a committee. Uh, just a few years ago when I sat on the house side of this committee. In, in, in interim, we, we spent a lot of time with abusive lawsuits related to A DDA issues. Uh, this is just to get out ahead of it so that we don't have to do that again. Um, it doesn't undercut the A DA in any way. It, uh, it really provides a much more friendly way to bring people into compliance as opposed to merely creating litigation, which is not the purpose of the a DA.

18. Committee chair (presiding)1:02:35

    Thank you. Thank you, Senator Brammer discussion to the motion to favorably recommend seeing none. We will go back to Representative Hawkins for summation.

19. Rep. Jon Hawkins1:02:45

    I'll waive. All right.

20. Committee chair (presiding)1:02:47

    Uh, we'll go ahead and, uh, Jennifer, could we do a roll call? Vote on, I'll restate The motion. Motion is to favorably recommend SB 68 Disability litigation amendments from Senator Brammer Representatives Abbott. Aye. Acton. Aye. Er, aye. Gracious. Yes. Hawkins? Yeah. Lube. Yes. Manga Millard. Um, libe I, Tom or Clancy? Yes. That, that motion passes eight to two with Representative Mauga and Representative Grant Millard voting in the know. Alright. Thank you.

Senate floor, Feb 13, 2026

1. Sen. Brady Brammer59:01

   to get out ahead of a problem that we've had. Uh, what's been happening is with the rise of ai, um, if you recall a few years ago, there were several lawsuits where they were going to businesses and kind of extorting them based on a DA violations. And it got to where it was abusive. And, and the judiciary, the judiciary Committee had to really step in. We're seeing something similar where they're looking at websites and of course we want websites to be aada a accessible, but what's happening is they're sending out AI bots to track thousands of websites, file complaints automatically. And this has become a big problem in California and Florida. We're trying to get out ahead of it before it comes here. What it does, what the bill does is it says, if you're going to give a notice of an a DA violation before you file the lawsuit, you need to give a period of time for the company that is, or the person with the website to come into compliance. And it's usually not a very difficult process. And so we're trying to just avoid, uh, we're trying to avoid money making plaintiff's litigation that is not tied to an actual harm. We just want them to have a notice and a chance to cure. And then if they refuse to occur, then go make the money and, and chase the lawsuit. But otherwise, we want to just give our citizens and our businesses, uh, some room to breathe and fix the problem before anything negative happens. So with that, I'm open to any questions.

2. President Adams (presiding)1:00:28

   Thank you. Senator Brammer looking for discussion to this bill. See none to you for a motion Call the question, The question is, shall Senate bill 68 be read a third time? Roll call vote.

3. Unknown speaker1:00:40

   Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lewin Brammer Bus Culmore Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Grover. Good morning Harper. Hankins Aye. Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay. Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Lum Rebe Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Bickers. Bier Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton plum picture? Aye. President Adams Aye.

4. President Adams (presiding)1:01:50

   Senate Bill 68 Having received 19 yay votes for nay votes. 16 Absent shall be read a third time.

5. President Adams (presiding)1:01:56

   Senator Stratton for personal privilege. Well, let me go, I'll call the next Bill. Senate Bill 71. We'll come back.

Senate floor, Feb 17, 2026

1. Sen. Brady Brammer35:22

   and Florida, where, uh, they're using AI to go through, uh, various websites, finding a DA violations and then filing suit. Uh, what this does is, you know, you can still file suit when someone, uh, has an a DA violation on their website, but you have to give them a little bit of time to fix it after they're notified. And so that's the main substance of the bill and I'm open to any questions on it?

2. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton (presiding)35:43

   Thank you for that presentation. It's there. Discussion to this bill. Seeing none. Senator Brammer back to you for summation or motion.

3. Sen. Brady Brammer35:52

   I would move that SB 68 pass

4. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton (presiding)35:55

   And the question is, shall Senate bill 68 pass Roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Bwin Brammer bus a Comore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Kwan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Ebby Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton, president Adams Okay, sounds good. Senate Bill 68, having received 20 yay votes, six na votes, three being absent passes, the Senate will be return sent to the house for further consideration. Senator Weiler.

House floor, Feb 26, 2026