SB 68

Enrolled Copy  S.B. 68
1Disability Litigation Amendments
  2026 GENERAL SESSION
  STATE OF UTAH
  Chief Sponsor: Brady Brammer
  House Sponsor: Nelson T. Abbott
2
3  LONG TITLE
4  General Description:
5      This bill addresses website access litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities
6  Act.
7  Highlighted Provisions:
8      This bill:
9      ▸ provides a sunset date for statutory provisions related to abusive website access litigation;
10      ▸ defines terms;
11      ▸ creates a civil action for a court to determine whether a lawsuit alleging a website access
12  violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act is abusive; and
13      ▸ allows a court to award attorney fees and costs, punitive damages, and sanctions if the
14  lawsuit is abusive.
15  Money Appropriated in this Bill:
16      None
17  Other Special Clauses:
18      None
19  Utah Code Sections Affected:
20  AMENDS:
21      63I-1-278, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 26
22  ENACTS:
23      78B-3-1301, Utah Code Annotated 1953
24      78B-3-1302, Utah Code Annotated 1953
25
26  Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
27Section 1. Section 63I-1-278 is amended to read:
S.B. 68  Enrolled Copy
2863I-1-278 . Repeal dates: Title 78A and Title 78B.
29   (1) Subsection 78A-7-106(7), regarding the transfer of a criminal action involving a
30domestic violence offense from the justice court to the district court, is repealed July 1,
312029.
32   (2) Section 78B-3-421, Arbitration agreements, is repealed July 1, 2029.
33   (3) Title 78B, Chapter 3, Part 13, Abusive Website Access Litigation, is repealed July 1,
342031.
35   [(3)] (4) Section 78B-4-518, Limitation on liability of employer for an employee convicted
36of an offense, is repealed July 1, 2029.
37   [(4)] (5) Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 2, Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, is repealed July 1,
382026.
39   [(5)] (6) Section 78B-22-805, Interdisciplinary Parental Representation Pilot Program, is
40repealed December 31, 2026.
41Section 2. Section 78B-3-1301 is enacted to read:
42Part 13. Abusive Website Access Litigation
4378B-3-1301 . Definitions for part.
44      As used in this part:
45   (1) "Americans with Disabilities Act" means the same as that term is defined in Section
4678B-8-701.
47   (2) "Attorney" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3-111.
48   (3) "Business organization" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3a-101.
49   (4) "Defendant" means a person against which a website access lawsuit is brought.
50   (5) "Defending party" means a resident who is a defendant in a website access lawsuit.
51   (6) "Filing party" means an individual, attorney, or law firm that initiated a website access
52lawsuit against a defending party.
53   (7) "Law firm" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3-111.
54   (8) "Principal place of business" means the same as that term is defined in Section
5578B-3a-101.
56   (9) "Registered office" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3a-101.
57   (10) "Resident" means:
58(a) the same as that term is defined in Section 53-3-102; or
59(b) a business organization with a principal place of business or registered office located
60in this state.
61   (11) "Website access lawsuit" means a lawsuit alleging that a website fails to comply with
  -2-
Enrolled Copy  S.B. 68
62      accessibility standards required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
63  (12) "Website access violation" means an allegation that a website fails to comply with
64      accessibility standards required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
65Section 3. Section 78B-3-1302 is enacted to read:
6678B-3-1302 . Action for determination of abuse -- Rebuttable presumptions --
67  Damages.
68  (1)(a) A defending party has a right of action against a filing party who initiated a
69      website access lawsuit against the defending party if the website access lawsuit is
70      abusive.
71      (b) The attorney general may bring an action under Subsection (1)(a) on behalf of a
72defending party.
73  (2)(a) A trier of fact shall find a website access lawsuit is abusive under this section if
74      the trier of fact determines by a preponderance of evidence that the filing party's
75      primary purpose of the website access lawsuit is to obtain monetary payment from
76      the defending party rather than to remedy a website access violation.
77      (b) In determining whether a website access lawsuit is abusive under Subsection (2)(a), a
78trier of fact shall consider the totality of the circumstances, including:
79(i) the number of substantially similar actions filed by the same filing party;
80(ii) whether the filing party has previously filed a frivolous lawsuit or other website
81access lawsuit that a trier of fact determined to be abusive;
82(iii) the defending party's ability to engage in the website access lawsuit;
83(iv) the defending party's ability to cure the website access violation;
84(v) whether the action was filed in a jurisdiction or venue that makes it unreasonably
85difficult for the defending party to defend;
86(vi) whether the filing party filing the website access lawsuit is a resident or licensed
87to practice law in this state;
88(vii) evidence that the filing party filed the website access lawsuit with the primary
89purpose to obtain monetary payment from the defending party rather than to
90remedy a website access violation; and
91(viii) any other evidence that the website access lawsuit is abusive.
92  (3) There is a rebuttable presumption that the website access lawsuit is abusive if the court
93      determines that a defending party bringing an action under this section:
94      (a) attempted, in good faith, to cure the website access violation within 30 days after the
95day on which the defending party received written notice with sufficient detail to
  -3-
 S.B. 68  Enrolled Copy
96identify and cure the website access violation; or
97(b) cured the website access violation within 90 days after the day on which the
98defending party received written notice with sufficient detail to identify and cure the
99website access violation.
100   (4) A trier of fact may not determine whether the website access lawsuit is abusive until the
101time periods described in Subsection (3) expire or the court determines that the website
102access violation is cured, whichever occurs first.
103   (5)(a) If a trier of fact determines that the website access lawsuit is abusive, the court
104may:
105(i) award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the defending party for:
106(A) bringing the action described in Subsection (2); and
107(B) defending against the website access lawsuit;
108(ii) award punitive damages to the defending party; and
109(iii) impose sanctions upon the filing party under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
110(b) Any punitive damages or monetary sanctions imposed by the court under Subsection
111(5)(a)(ii) or (5)(a)(iii) may not exceed three times the amount awarded under
112Subsection (5)(a)(i).
113Section 4. Effective Date.
114   This bill takes effect on May 6, 2026.
  -4-