Converge Accessibility: Legal Update, February 2026

New Mexico Pushes State Accessibility Standards with HB 295

New Mexico's House Bill 295 (Accessibility Act) would require state agencies to bring their websites, mobile apps, and physical facilities into compliance with defined accessibility standards. Under the bill, the Department of Information Technology must adopt digital accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.1 AA (or successor standards), and each state agency must meet those benchmarks for its digital services and public interfaces by April 1, 2027.

The bill also mandates that agencies post website accessibility statements, providing contact info and known limitations, and creates a new Office of Accessibility to oversee implementation, offer technical assistance, and publish biennial accessibility compliance reports to the Governor and Legislature.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Just about this time last year, we reported on HB 120, a substantially similar bill that sailed through the legislature and was vetoed by the governor. Should we expect the same for HB 295?

DOJ Objects to Proposed Fashion Nova ADA Website Settlement

Remember the Fashion Nova case? This is the settlement from a few months ago where the company agreed to pay $5.15 million - with half of the funds to the attorneys. If you thought that was a bit unfair, you're not alone. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a Statement of Interest opposing a proposed class action settlement.

The DOJ argues the proposed terms fail to deliver meaningful accessibility improvements for blind and low-vision consumers, lack enforcement and monitoring mechanisms, and disproportionately benefit plaintiff's counsel over the class. It also noted that the settlement administrator's claims website isn't itself accessible. The DOJ stated it does not oppose meaningful relief that actually makes a website accessible, but called on courts to scrutinize class action settlements that merely enrich counsel without supporting disability rights.

OMB Now Questioning ADA Title II Web Accessibility Regulation

Oh, the drama over the Justice Department rule just never ends. A few months ago, we called out the American Council on Education and Educause for their push to have the ADA Title II web accessibility rule suspended or weakened for colleges and universities.

Earlier this month, our good friend Jack McElaney told us about a new effort by the League of Minnesota Cities in pushing OMB to have the rule relaxed.

Following the links in that post takes the reader to a page on the OMB website stating that the agency may issue an "interim final rule" regarding the existing regulation - but that page links to another web page that says that DOJ will be issuing a new NPRM to "reconsider whether some of the regulatory provisions imposed by the April 24, 2024 rule could be made less costly."

We've talked before regulatory short-cuts, like the "direct final rule" that the Department of Energy tried to use to avoid scrutiny. And what the heck is an "interim final rule"?

If you don't recall what an "interim final rule" is from your second year law school class on Administrative Law, don't feel bad. According to an interesting article that my friend David Kutch pointed me towards, an interim final rule isn't something that is spelled out in the Administrative Procedures Act but can be used "when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." 5 USC § 553(b)(B).

Why would DOJ have to use such an interim final rule to get this accomplished? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that DOJ fired all of the attorneys who could have worked on an NPRM to get this done. The fact that they could do it the right way (via an NPRM) but just don't have the staff to do it doesn't seem like "good cause" under the APA.

And even if the administration did think that they did have good cause, this Supreme Court overturned Chevron, so any agency decision like this is entirely up to the Court. I'm no expert in Administrative law but it seems like the ADA Title II web accessibility rule is safe; if the administration issues an interim final rule, it could get easily overturned in court and, if it decided to pursue an NPRM, they wouldn't have the staff to create a final regulation. There is something strangely satisfying in knowing that this administration's inability to undermine disability rights is due to obstacles of its own creation.

House Bill Would Add Administrative Steps Before ADA Website Suits

Representative Sam Graves (R-Mo.) introduced the H.R. 7328 (Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act) to protect small businesses at the federal level. This mirrors action at the state level.

The troubling part is that the federal bill proposes doing this by amending the ADA to require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil lawsuit over an allegedly inaccessible consumer-facing website or mobile app. Under the bill, an individual must first provide notice to the website or app owner and then wait through structured administrative and DOJ review periods before litigation can proceed, giving businesses a chance to address compliance issues before facing court claims. Past attempts to build in administrative burdens into the ADA have failed and there's no reason to think that this effort won't fail as well. Disability advocates need to stay alert, however.

California Bill Would Create Website Accessibility Defenses and New Provider Duties

California Assembly Bill 2190 would amend the Unruh Civil Rights Act to give businesses an affirmative defense in accessibility lawsuits based on specific website barriers if, within a set period after a written pre-lawsuit demand, they publicly disclose the barrier and remediation steps in a digital accessibility report or show they had a reasonable, good-faith belief the site was accessible and were actively addressing issues.

The bill would also prohibit "resource service providers" (e.g., developers or vendors) from negligently, recklessly, or knowingly creating or maintaining inaccessible web resources or falsely claiming they meet accessibility standards, and it would allow small business entities and public prosecutors (including the Attorney General) to enforce those prohibitions. We've previously talked about California's attempts to protect businesses from web accessibility lawsuits. This time, however, it isn't clear to me whether the rules about service providers is aimed at web developers or overlay manufacturers?