25-0002-S76

The Los Angeles City Council's Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City support Senate Bill 84 (SB 84) at the state level.

District
First Seen October 29, 2025
Last Seen October 29, 2025
Appearances 1 meeting(s)
Official title: RULES, ELECTIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT and RESOLUTION relative to establishing the City’s position on Senate Bill (SB) 84 (Niello), which would provide businesses an opportunity to fix construction-related deficiencies that violate disability access provisions before penalties are issued.

Timeline

Related documents

Report from Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee 10-21-25
What is Being Proposed?

The Los Angeles City Council's Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City support Senate Bill 84 (SB 84) at the state level. The bill would give businesses an opportunity to fix construction-related accessibility problems before facing penalties, clarify notice requirements for disability access complaints, and prevent fraudulent accessibility-related lawsuits.

Why?

The proposal responds to a serious problem identified in San Francisco and Northern California. In 2021, there was a dramatic spike in ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lawsuits filed against small, immigrant-owned businesses. According to the San Francisco District Attorney, many of these lawsuits were fraudulent and deliberately targeted vulnerable business owners—particularly those with limited English proficiency and little access to legal representation. These owners were pressured into cash settlements, causing many businesses to close.

Key Details

The Committee voted unanimously (5-0) on October 21, 2025, to recommend approval. The resolution was originally introduced on August 12, 2025. The Committee is asking the City to include SB 84 support in its 2025-26 State Legislative Program. The bill specifically aims to protect small business owners from predatory litigation while still maintaining disability access protections through a more fair process.

Impact

This affects small business owners—particularly immigrants and vulnerable populations—by providing legal protections against frivolous lawsuits while maintaining genuine accessibility standards for people with disabilities. The measure balances disability rights with fair treatment for businesses facing potentially fraudulent claims.

Report from Chief Legislative Analyst dated 10-20-25
What is Being Proposed?

The Los Angeles City Council is being asked to support Senate Bill 84 (SB 84), pending legislation at the state level. The recommendation is to include SB 84 in the City's 2025-2026 State Legislative Program. SB 84 would require small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to receive a mandatory 120-day "notice-and-cure" period to fix disability access violations before facing penalties or lawsuits.

Why?

California, particularly San Francisco, experienced a dramatic surge in disability access lawsuits filed against small businesses between 2020-2021. The San Francisco District Attorney identified many of these lawsuits as fraudulent and predatory, targeting immigrant-owned businesses with limited English proficiency. These businesses were often pressured into settling for amounts far exceeding repair costs (averaging $14,000), and many closed without improving actual accessibility. SB 84 aims to protect small businesses while ensuring disability access improvements actually occur.

Key Details

SB 84 requires plaintiffs to serve detailed letters specifying all alleged violations before filing suit Small businesses get 120 days to fix violations before facing liability or attorney fees The bill prevents framing disability claims as general discrimination violations Introduced in response to predatory litigation patterns targeting vulnerable business owners The state Senate passed the amended bill on May 23, 2025

Impact

This affects small business owners seeking fair treatment and individuals with disabilities. Supporters argue it prevents frivolous lawsuits while still requiring accessibility improvements. However, disability rights advocates oppose it, arguing it removes their primary enforcement tool and increases barriers to compliance.

2 additional document(s)
Communication(s) from Public_10-22-2025
Resolution (Lee - McOsker) dated 8-12-25