Recent proposals to “reform” the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are being framed as a way to protect small businesses through notice-and-cure requirements. These proposed changes deserve careful, thoughtful examination.
At first glance, these proposals sound reasonable. Give businesses notice. Allow time to fix issues. Reduce unnecessary litigation. Those are not bad instincts. In fact, they reflect something important: most businesses are not trying to exclude anyone. Most accessibility failures are not malicious.
But reasonableness cuts both ways. And when we look more closely, we must ask harder questions: Who bears the burden during that waiting period, and at what cost? And perhaps most importantly, what is the real end goal, and is this the best way to get there?
In this post, we’ll look at the proposed changes, explore pros and cons on both sides of the argument, and highlight what needs to remain central to the conversation as this effort moves forward; namely, that digital accessibility is the goal, and that this goal is attainable—even for small businesses.
The ADA 30 Days to Comply Act
Congressman Mike Lawler is a co-sponsor of a bill called the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, about which he has stated the following:
“The ADA was created to guarantee access and protect the rights of Americans with disabilities, not to fuel drive-by lawsuits that do nothing to actually fix the problem. Our bill creates a simple, fair process for navigating an ADA violation so that businesses get notified and have 30 days to make it right. That means quicker compliance, better access, and fewer bad-faith lawsuits that punish well-intentioned small businesses.”
This language presumes a contradiction that we need to unpack and address.
Accessibility and profitability are not mutually exclusive
Supporting disability rights and supporting businesses are not contradictory aims. In fact, long-term success depends on both.
I work with organizations every day that are overwhelmed by conflicting guidance, unclear legal expectations, legacy platforms, and limited budgets. Small businesses, in particular, are often navigating accessibility without in-house expertise or legal teams. Fear is real. Confusion is real. And yes, poorly framed lawsuits can feel punitive rather than constructive. Acknowledging that reality does not weaken the ADA. It strengthens our ability to implement it well.
Where we go wrong is when we assume the solution is to slow down enforcement rather than improve clarity, support, and accountability.
The real problem is not “drive-by lawsuits”
The narrative of rampant “drive-by” lawsuits suggests that businesses are being ambushed without warning. But in digital accessibility, that framing often obscures what’s actually happening.
Most accessibility issues are systemic, not accidental. They stem from:
- Platforms chosen without accessibility criteria
- Templates reused across dozens or even hundreds of pages
- Third-party tools embedded without evaluation
- A lack of ongoing testing and governance
When the same types of barriers appear repeatedly across updates and redesigns, the issue isn’t a lack of notice. It’s the absence of sustainable accessibility practices. When barriers are known, repeated, and left unaddressed, the resulting lawsuits should not be treated as a surprise.
It’s also worth stepping back and remembering what often gets lost in debates like this: access. Too often, conversations become overly focused on legal process rather than on whether people with disabilities can fully use websites and digital services. When we focus on how lawsuits occur rather than why barriers persist, we risk losing sight of what actually needs to change.
The most reliable way to reduce ADA lawsuits is not delay, but proactive prevention of accessibility barriers.
What a true win-win looks like
If we genuinely want to protect small businesses and uphold civil rights, we should focus on solutions that reduce friction without reducing rights.
That means:
- Clear, stable technical standards so businesses know what “accessible” means
- Safe harbors tied to good-faith, ongoing compliance, not one-time fixes
- Education and tooling that make accessibility achievable, not intimidating
- Procurement accountability, so small businesses aren’t forced into inaccessible platforms they can’t control
This approach doesn’t ask a person with a disability to wait longer for access. It helps businesses get ahead of problems before harm occurs.
The good news is that proactive accessibility is not reserved for large enterprises with legal teams and big budgets. With clear standards, affordable tools, and thoughtful platform choices, even small “mom and pop” businesses can build and maintain accessible digital experiences.
Accessibility done well is not about perfection. It’s about progress, maintenance, and accountability over time.
A better way to address “drive-by” accessibility lawsuits
If your business is on the receiving end of this type of lawsuit, you have two clear desires: 1) To resolve the lawsuit, and 2) To try and avoid any similar lawsuits in the future. To achieve these goals, you can work with qualified accessibility experts who can help you separate legitimate issues from noise, guide remediation in coordination with counsel, and ensure that your response is driven by fixing real barriers, not by fear or pressure. The goal is to resolve the issue responsibly and put durable accessibility practices in place so you’re not facing the same situation again.
If you do get hit by this type of lawsuit, don’t panic, but also, don’t ignore it. Engage legal counsel with experience in ADA and digital accessibility, and focus immediately on understanding the specific barriers being alleged. Bring in an experienced accessibility expert to validate the claims, identify high-impact issues, and help you build a concrete remediation plan with realistic timelines. Demonstrating good-faith action, documented progress, and a commitment to ongoing accessibility often matters more than achieving instant perfection.
A better way to approach legislation
Notice-and-cure requirements shift responsibility in a subtle but important way. They ask people with disabilities to first identify violations, formally notify the business, wait patiently, and hope remediation is meaningful—before the law will protect their right to participate fully. That may feel reasonable on paper, but in practice, it adds friction only for the person already facing the barrier.
The ADA exists because access was too often optional, delayed, or ignored. It is a civil rights law, not a customer service escalation process. When a person with a disability encounters a barrier (whether that’s a step at the door or an inaccessible website), the harm isn’t abstract. It’s immediate.
In digital spaces, especially, access is time-sensitive. If you can’t apply for a job today, access healthcare information today, complete coursework today, or engage with your government today, waiting 30 or 60 days is not a minor inconvenience. It is exclusion. And exclusion, even when temporary, is still a denial of equal access.
Moving accessibility and business forward—together
The ADA was enacted because voluntary compliance alone did not work. That history matters. Any reform effort must preserve the law’s core purpose: ensuring equal participation in society for people with disabilities.
We can, and should, support businesses with guidance, clarity, and reasonable pathways to compliance. But we should not do so by shifting the cost of delay onto the very people the law was designed to protect.
This does not have to be a win-lose debate. With the right balance, it can be a win-win: stronger civil rights protections and more confident, capable businesses.
That balance starts by remembering a simple truth: access delayed is access denied. The real path forward is committing to accessibility and taking proactive responsibility to sustain it by design.
Contact Deque today to explore how you can achieve proactive digital accessibility for your business.
