Back to Utah

SB0068 • 2026

Disability Litigation Amendments

Disability Litigation Amendments

Enacted

This bill passed the Legislature and reached final enactment based on the latest official action.

Sponsor
Sen. Brammer, Brady
Last action
2026-03-23
Official status
Governor Signed
Effective date
Not listed

Plain English Breakdown

Using official source text because the generated explanation was unavailable or could not be confirmed against the official bill text.

Disability Litigation Amendments

This bill addresses website access litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What This Bill Does

  • This bill addresses website access litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Limits and Unknowns

  • This entry is temporarily using official source text because the generated explanation could not be confirmed against the official bill text during the last sync.

Bill History

  1. 2026-03-23 Lieutenant Governor's office for filing

    Governor Signed

  2. 2026-03-13 Senate Secretary

    Senate/ received enrolled bill from Printing

  3. 2026-03-13 Executive Branch - Governor

    Senate/ to Governor

  4. 2026-03-11 Senate Secretary

    Enrolled Bill Returned to House or Senate

  5. 2026-03-11 Senate Secretary

    Senate/ enrolled bill to Printing

  6. 2026-03-02 Legislative Research and General Counsel / Enrolling

    Bill Received from Senate for Enrolling

  7. 2026-03-02 Legislative Research and General Counsel / Enrolling

    Draft of Enrolled Bill Prepared

  8. 2026-02-26 House 3rd Reading Calendar for Senate bills

    House/ 3rd reading

  9. 2026-02-26 House Speaker

    House/ passed 3rd reading

  10. 2026-02-26 Senate President

    House/ signed by Speaker/ returned to Senate

  11. 2026-02-26 Senate President

    House/ to Senate

  12. 2026-02-26 Senate President

    Senate/ received from House

  13. 2026-02-26 Legislative Research and General Counsel / Enrolling

    Senate/ signed by President/ sent for enrolling

  14. 2026-02-25 House Judiciary Committee

    House Comm - Favorable Recommendation

  15. 2026-02-25 House 3rd Reading Calendar for Senate bills

    House/ 2nd reading

  16. 2026-02-25 House Judiciary Committee

    House/ committee report favorable

  17. 2026-02-19 House Judiciary Committee

    House/ to standing committee

  18. 2026-02-17 House Rules Committee

    House/ 1st reading (Introduced)

  19. 2026-02-17 Clerk of the House

    House/ received from Senate

  20. 2026-02-17 Senate 3rd Reading Calendar

    Senate/ 3rd reading

  21. 2026-02-17 Clerk of the House

    Senate/ passed 3rd reading

  22. 2026-02-17 Clerk of the House

    Senate/ to House

  23. 2026-02-13 Senate 2nd Reading Calendar

    Senate/ 2nd reading

  24. 2026-02-13 Senate 3rd Reading Calendar

    Senate/ passed 2nd reading

  25. 2026-01-29 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee

    Senate/ committee report favorable

  26. 2026-01-29 Senate 2nd Reading Calendar

    Senate/ placed on 2nd Reading Calendar

  27. 2026-01-27 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee

    Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation

  28. 2026-01-20 Senate Rules Committee

    Senate/ 1st reading (Introduced)

  29. 2026-01-20 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee

    Senate/ to standing committee

  30. 2026-01-16 Released

    LFA/ fiscal note publicly available for SB0068

  31. 2026-01-16 Version Sponsor

    LFA/ fiscal note sent to sponsor for SB0068

  32. 2026-01-16 Waiting for Introduction in the Senate

    Senate/ received fiscal note from Fiscal Analyst

  33. 2026-01-07 Waiting for Introduction in the Senate

    Senate/ received bill from Legislative Research

  34. 2026-01-02 Legislative Research and General Counsel

    Bill Numbered but not Distributed

  35. 2026-01-02 Legislative Fiscal Analyst

    LFA/ bill assigned to staff for fiscal analysis for SB0068

  36. 2026-01-02 Legislative Fiscal Agency

    LFA/ bill sent to agencies for fiscal input for SB0068

  37. 2026-01-02 Legislative Research and General Counsel

    Numbered Bill Publicly Distributed

Official Summary Text

This bill addresses website access litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Current Bill Text

Read the full stored bill text
27
63I-1-278
78B-3-1301
78B-3-1302
0
Disability Litigation Amendments
2026 GENERAL SESSION
STATE OF UTAH
Chief Sponsor: Brady Brammer
House Sponsor: Nelson T. Abbott
LONG TITLE
General Description:
This bill addresses website access litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
provides a sunset date for statutory provisions related to abusive website access litigation;
defines terms;
creates a civil action for a court to determine whether a lawsuit alleging a website access
violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act is abusive; and
allows a court to award attorney fees and costs, punitive damages, and sanctions if the
lawsuit is abusive.
Money Appropriated in this Bill:
None
Other Special Clauses:
None
Utah Code Sections Affected:
AMENDS:
63I-1-278
, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 26
ENACTS:
78B-3-1301
, Utah Code Annotated 1953
78B-3-1302
, Utah Code Annotated 1953
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
Section 1. Section
63I-1-278
is amended to read:
63I-1-278
. Repeal dates: Title 78A and Title 78B.
(1)
Subsection
78A-7-106(7)
, regarding the transfer of a criminal action involving a
domestic violence offense from the justice court to the district court, is repealed July 1,
2029.
(2)
Section
78B-3-421
, Arbitration agreements, is repealed July 1, 2029.
(3)
Title 78B, Chapter 3, Part 13, Abusive Website Access Litigation, is repealed July 1,
2031.
(3)
(4)
Section
78B-4-518
, Limitation on liability of employer for an employee convicted
of an offense, is repealed July 1, 2029.
(4)
(5)
Title
78B, Chapter 6, Part 2
, Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, is repealed July 1,
2026.
(5)
(6)
Section
78B-22-805
, Interdisciplinary Parental Representation Pilot Program, is
repealed December 31, 2026.
Section 2. Section
78B-3-1301
is enacted to read:
13. Abusive Website Access Litigation
78B-3-1301
. Definitions for part.
As used in this part:
(1)
"Americans with Disabilities Act" means the same as that term is defined in Section
78B-8-701
.
(2)
"Attorney" means the same as that term is defined in Section
78B-3-111
.
(3)
"Business organization" means the same as that term is defined in Section
78B-3a-101
.
(4)
"Defendant" means a person against which a website access lawsuit is brought.
(5)
"Defending party" means a resident who is a defendant in a website access lawsuit.
(6)
"Filing party" means an individual, attorney, or law firm that initiated a website access
lawsuit against a defending party.
(7)
"Law firm" means the same as that term is defined in Section
78B-3-111
.
(8)
"Principal place of business" means the same as that term is defined in Section
78B-3a-101
.
(9)
"Registered office" means the same as that term is defined in Section
78B-3a-101
.
(10)
"Resident" means:
(a)
the same as that term is defined in Section
53-3-102
; or
(b)
a business organization with a principal place of business or registered office located
in this state.
(11)
"Website access lawsuit" means a lawsuit alleging that a website fails to comply with
accessibility standards required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(12)
"Website access violation" means an allegation that a website fails to comply with
accessibility standards required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Section 3. Section
78B-3-1302
is enacted to read:
78B-3-1302
. Action for determination of abuse -- Rebuttable presumptions --
Damages.
(1)
(a)
A defending party has a right of action against a filing party who initiated a
website access lawsuit against the defending party if the website access lawsuit is
abusive.
(b)
The attorney general may bring an action under Subsection
(1)(a)
on behalf of a
defending party.
(2)
(a)
A trier of fact shall find a website access lawsuit is abusive under this section if
the trier of fact determines by a preponderance of evidence that the filing party's
primary purpose of the website access lawsuit is to obtain monetary payment from
the defending party rather than to remedy a website access violation.
(b)
In determining whether a website access lawsuit is abusive under Subsection
(2)(a)
, a
trier of fact shall consider the totality of the circumstances, including:
(i)
the number of substantially similar actions filed by the same filing party;
(ii)
whether the filing party has previously filed a frivolous lawsuit or other website
access lawsuit that a trier of fact determined to be abusive;
(iii)
the defending party's ability to engage in the website access lawsuit;
(iv)
the defending party's ability to cure the website access violation;
(v)
whether the action was filed in a jurisdiction or venue that makes it unreasonably
difficult for the defending party to defend;
(vi)
whether the filing party filing the website access lawsuit is a resident or licensed
to practice law in this state;
(vii)
evidence that the filing party filed the website access lawsuit with the primary
purpose to obtain monetary payment from the defending party rather than to
remedy a website access violation; and
(viii)
any other evidence that the website access lawsuit is abusive.
(3)
There is a rebuttable presumption that the website access lawsuit is abusive if the court
determines that a defending party bringing an action under this section:
(a)
attempted, in good faith, to cure the website access violation within 30 days after the
day on which the defending party received written notice with sufficient detail to
identify and cure the website access violation; or
(b)
cured the website access violation within 90 days after the day on which the
defending party received written notice with sufficient detail to identify and cure the
website access violation.
(4)
A trier of fact may not determine whether the website access lawsuit is abusive until the
time periods described in Subsection
(3)
expire or the court determines that the website
access violation is cured, whichever occurs first.
(5)
(a)
If a trier of fact determines that the website access lawsuit is abusive, the court
may:
(i)
award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the defending party for:
(A)
bringing the action described in Subsection
(2)
; and
(B)
defending against the website access lawsuit;
(ii)
award punitive damages to the defending party; and
(iii)
impose sanctions upon the filing party under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b)
Any punitive damages or monetary sanctions imposed by the court under Subsection
(5)(a)(ii)
or
(5)(a)(iii)
may not exceed three times the amount awarded under
Subsection
(5)(a)(i)
.
Section 4.
Effective Date.
This bill takes effect on
May 6, 2026
.
3-10-26 11:08 AM