SB1942 - 104th General Assembly
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | AN ACT concerning civil law. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, | |||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | represented in the General Assembly: | |||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Stop | |||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Abusive Website Access Litigation Act. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Section 5. Definitions. In this Act: | |||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | "Access violation" means any allegation that a public | |||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | accommodation does not provide sufficient access under the | |||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | "Public accommodation" has the meaning given to that term | |||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. "Public | |||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | accommodation" includes a website operated by a resident of | |||||||||||||||||||
| 13 | this State. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | "Resident" means any resident of the State. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 15 | Section 10. Litigation by the Attorney General. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | (a) The Attorney General, on behalf of a class of | |||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | residents, that is subject to litigation that alleges any | |||||||||||||||||||
| 18 | website access violation and any resident of this State that | |||||||||||||||||||
| 19 | is subject to litigation that alleges any website access | |||||||||||||||||||
| 20 | violation may file a civil action in any court in this State | |||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated such | |||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | litigation for a determination as to whether such litigation | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | alleging a website access violation is abusive litigation. | ||||||
| 2 | In determining whether any litigation that alleges a | ||||||
| 3 | website access violation constitutes abusive litigation, the | ||||||
| 4 | trier of fact shall consider the totality of the circumstances | ||||||
| 5 | to determine if the primary purpose of the litigation is | ||||||
| 6 | obtaining a payment from a defendant because of the expense of | ||||||
| 7 | defending the action in court. For the purposes of making this | ||||||
| 8 | determination, the trier of fact may assess the following | ||||||
| 9 | factors and any other factors the trier of fact deems | ||||||
| 10 | relevant: | ||||||
| 11 | (1) the number of substantially similar actions filed | ||||||
| 12 | by the same plaintiff, lawyer, or law firm or the history | ||||||
| 13 | of such plaintiff, lawyer, or law firm in bringing | ||||||
| 14 | frivolous litigation or other litigation declared by a | ||||||
| 15 | court to be abusive litigation in the past 10 years; | ||||||
| 16 | (2) was there a good-faith attempt by the litigant to | ||||||
| 17 | offer the small business time to resolve the issue before | ||||||
| 18 | filing litigation; | ||||||
| 19 | (3) the number of full-time employees employed by the | ||||||
| 20 | defendant and the resources available to the defendant to | ||||||
| 21 | engage in the litigation; | ||||||
| 22 | (4) the resources available to the defendant to | ||||||
| 23 | correct the alleged website-access violation; | ||||||
| 24 | (5) whether the jurisdiction or venue where the action | ||||||
| 25 | is brought is a substantial obstacle to defending against | ||||||
| 26 | the litigation; and | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | (6) whether the filing party or lawyer filing the | ||||||
| 2 | litigation is a resident of this State or is licensed to | ||||||
| 3 | practice law in this State. | ||||||
| 4 | (b) Except as provided further, if the defendant in the | ||||||
| 5 | litigation that alleges a website access violation in good | ||||||
| 6 | faith attempts to cure the alleged violation within 90 days | ||||||
| 7 | after being provided written notice or being served a petition | ||||||
| 8 | or complaint with sufficient detail to identify and correct | ||||||
| 9 | the alleged violation, there shall be a rebuttable presumption | ||||||
| 10 | that the subsequent initiation or continuance of litigation | ||||||
| 11 | that alleges a website access violation constitutes abusive | ||||||
| 12 | litigation. | ||||||
| 13 | (c) There shall not be a rebuttable presumption that such | ||||||
| 14 | litigation is abusive litigation if the alleged website access | ||||||
| 15 | violation is not corrected, as determined by the court, within | ||||||
| 16 | 180 days after being provided written notice or being served a | ||||||
| 17 | petition or complaint with sufficient detail to identify and | ||||||
| 18 | correct the alleged violation. The trier of fact may not | ||||||
| 19 | determine whether such litigation is abusive litigation until | ||||||
| 20 | after the 180-day period expires or the alleged violation is | ||||||
| 21 | corrected, as determined by the court, whichever occurs first. | ||||||
| 22 | (d) If the Attorney General determines that the litigation | ||||||
| 23 | alleging a website access violation is not abusive, there | ||||||
| 24 | shall be a rebuttable presumption that such litigation is not | ||||||
| 25 | abusive. | ||||||
| 26 | (e) At the conclusion of the litigation alleging a website | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | access violation, if the court determines that the litigation | ||||||
| 2 | is abusive, it may award to the defendant attorney's fees and | ||||||
| 3 | costs as appropriate under the Code of Civil Procedure and | ||||||
| 4 | Supreme Court Rules. The court may also award to the defendant | ||||||
| 5 | punitive damages not to exceed 3 times the amount of | ||||||
| 6 | attorney's fees awarded to the defendant. | ||||||
