Notice & Cure Legislation: How Upcoming US Laws Could Change Accessibility Lawsuits

A Shopify store owner in Florida receives an accessibility demand letter. Ten years ago, this would have triggered immediate lawsuit fears and settlement negotiations. Today, Florida's notice and cure law gives that merchant 60 days to fix the issues before any lawsuit can proceed.

This shift represents a fundamental change in how accessibility lawsuits work in certain states. Notice and cure legislation introduces mandatory waiting periods, damage limitations, and remediation opportunities that didn't exist in most jurisdictions until recently. But these laws also create new strategic questions: Should businesses wait for notice letters, or invest in proactive compliance? How do you mobilize technical resources for rapid remediation? And what happens when you operate across multiple states with different requirements?

The answers matter because the legislative landscape is evolving rapidly. Several states have enacted or proposed notice and cure provisions, while others are watching closely. Understanding these laws—and their practical implications—helps you make smarter decisions about accessibility compliance, legal risk management, and resource allocation.

Key Takeaways

• Florida and Utah have enacted notice and cure laws requiring 60-180 day remediation periods before accessibility lawsuits can proceed, with several other states considering similar legislation
• Notice and cure laws reduce settlement leverage for plaintiffs and limit damages during cure periods, but don't prevent lawsuits if businesses fail to remediate issues
• Proactive compliance remains more cost-effective than reactive remediation—notice periods create time pressure, emergency costs, and public exposure to accessibility complaints
• Businesses operating across multiple states face complex compliance coordination as notice and cure requirements vary by jurisdiction with no federal standard
• Technical infrastructure for rapid remediation becomes critical under notice and cure laws, requiring vendor relationships and monitoring systems for quick response

Understanding Notice and Cure Legislation Fundamentals

Notice and cure legislation establishes a legal framework that requires plaintiffs to notify businesses about accessibility violations before filing a lawsuit. This notification triggers a mandatory cure period—typically 60 to 180 days depending on the state—during which businesses can remediate the identified issues without facing litigation.

The framework includes several key components that distinguish it from traditional ADA enforcement patterns. First, the notification requirement mandates that plaintiffs provide specific details about alleged violations rather than filing lawsuits immediately. Second, the cure period gives businesses protected time to address issues without accruing damages or legal fees. Third, damage limitation provisions restrict the types of financial penalties plaintiffs can seek during and sometimes after the cure period.

Florida's accessibility notice and cure law, enacted in 2023, requires 60 days' notice before filing accessibility lawsuits. The law specifies that businesses receiving notice must "cure" the alleged violations within this timeframe. If they do, plaintiffs cannot proceed with litigation for those specific violations. Utah's legislation follows a similar structure, though implementation details and cure periods differ.

These laws emerged from business community frustration with what many perceive as predatory accessibility litigation—situations where serial plaintiffs file lawsuits primarily for settlement revenue rather than genuine access improvement. Tennessee and several other states have proposed similar frameworks, with legislative language varying in cure period length, damage limitation scope, and enforcement mechanisms.

Federal legislative proposals have also emerged, though none have achieved passage as of early 2025. These proposals face complex political dynamics, with business lobbies supporting them and some disability rights advocates expressing concerns about access to justice. The absence of federal legislation means businesses must navigate a patchwork of state-level requirements that differ significantly across jurisdictions.

Current State Legislative Landscape

Enacted Notice and Cure Laws by State

Florida's 2023 accessibility notice and cure law provides one of the most studied examples of this legislative approach in action. The law requires plaintiffs to provide businesses with written notice specifying the alleged accessibility violations. Businesses then have 60 days to cure the issues or demonstrate good faith efforts toward compliance. If the business cures violations within this period, the plaintiff cannot proceed with litigation for those specific claims.

Early implementation results show businesses using this timeframe to conduct rapid accessibility audits and deploy remediation strategies. Settlement patterns have shifted, with fewer immediate lawsuit filings and more negotiated remediation agreements during cure periods. However, the law doesn't prevent lawsuits entirely—only those where businesses successfully cure identified violations within the required timeframe.

Utah's accessibility legislation takes a slightly different approach while maintaining the core notice and cure structure. The state's framework includes provisions for both web and physical accessibility, recognizing that digital accessibility compliance intersects with broader ADA requirements. Businesses in Utah report that the legislation has reduced immediate lawsuit pressure while creating new compliance planning requirements.

Tennessee's accessibility lawsuit reform efforts focus on similar notice periods with variations in damage limitation provisions. The state's proposals include specific language addressing website accessibility violations, reflecting growing recognition that digital properties face distinct compliance challenges compared to physical locations.

Other states have introduced proposals with varying levels of political momentum. Some state legislative sessions in 2025-2026 include active accessibility law proposals that mirror Florida's framework, while others take more limited approaches. The U.S. Department of Justice's web accessibility rule for Title II entities (state and local governments) has influenced some state-level discussions, though Title III (private businesses) remains the primary focus of most notice and cure legislation.

Proposed Legislation and Political Momentum

State legislative sessions in 2025 and 2026 show active consideration of accessibility notice and cure provisions across multiple jurisdictions. Several states have introduced bills that would establish notification requirements ranging from 60 to 180 days, reflecting ongoing debate about appropriate remediation timeframes. The variation in proposed cure periods suggests legislators are weighing business compliance needs against disability community access concerns.

Business lobby groups generally support notice and cure legislation, arguing it reduces frivolous litigation while still ensuring accessibility compliance. Organizations like state chambers of commerce and retail associations have backed these proposals, citing concerns about serial plaintiff activity and settlement-focused lawsuit patterns.

Disability rights advocacy groups present more nuanced positions. Some organizations oppose notice and cure laws, arguing they create barriers to enforcement that could reduce overall accessibility progress. Others support the concept if paired with robust compliance requirements and clear remediation standards. This diversity of viewpoints within the disability rights community reflects different perspectives on how best to achieve meaningful accessibility improvements.

Political dynamics vary significantly across states. Republican-controlled legislatures have shown stronger support for notice and cure provisions, often framing them as business protection measures. Democratic-controlled legislatures have approached the topic more cautiously, with greater emphasis on maintaining enforcement mechanisms. However, some bipartisan support exists, particularly in states where accessibility lawsuit volume has created constituent pressure.

Model legislation development and interstate coordination efforts are emerging as states observe each other's approaches. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks these proposals, and some states are adapting language from Florida's and Utah's enacted laws. This cross-pollination suggests notice and cure frameworks may continue spreading, though specific provisions will likely vary based on local political and business environments.

Impact on Business Legal Strategy and Risk Management

Changes to Accessibility Lawsuit Defense Strategy

Notice and cure legislation fundamentally alters the cost-benefit calculation between proactive compliance programs and reactive remediation approaches. Traditional accessibility lawsuit defense often involved immediate settlement negotiations, legal fee calculations, and rapid remediation efforts under lawsuit pressure. Notice and cure laws insert a mandatory pause into this timeline, creating a defined remediation window before litigation costs begin accruing.

This pause changes settlement dynamics significantly. Plaintiffs lose some leverage because they cannot immediately file lawsuits or threaten litigation during the cure period. Businesses gain negotiating power through the option to remediate violations and eliminate lawsuit grounds entirely. However, this advantage only materializes if businesses can actually cure violations within the required timeframe—a technical challenge that varies dramatically based on the complexity of accessibility issues.

Legal cost reduction through notice and cure compliance requires careful execution. When you receive an accessibility demand letter, you still need legal counsel to evaluate the notice, determine appropriate response strategies, and coordinate technical remediation. The difference is that you're not simultaneously defending against an active lawsuit, which typically involves higher legal fees, court costs, and settlement pressures.

Settlement leverage and negotiation strategy modifications affect how businesses approach accessibility complaints. Rather than negotiating settlement amounts under immediate lawsuit threat, businesses can propose remediation plans, demonstrate good faith compliance efforts, and potentially eliminate litigation entirely. This shifts conversations from "how much to settle" to "how quickly can we fix this"—a change that favors businesses with strong technical remediation capabilities.

Insurance coverage and legal liability calculations change under notice and cure regimes. Some business insurance policies include provisions for accessibility claims, but coverage specifics vary. Notice and cure laws may affect premium calculations, coverage limits, and claim filing procedures. Businesses should review insurance policies with brokers who understand accessibility liability and state-specific notice requirements.

Compliance Timeline and Resource Planning

The 60-180 day cure period seems generous until you consider what accessibility remediation actually requires. Most businesses need to conduct a comprehensive accessibility audit, prioritize identified issues, develop remediation plans, implement technical fixes, test solutions, and document compliance—all within a compressed timeframe. This reality makes resource allocation and project management critical to successful cure period navigation.

Emergency accessibility remediation differs fundamentally from comprehensive compliance programs. Proactive accessibility implementation allows methodical planning, staged deployment, and continuous improvement. Emergency remediation under notice and cure deadlines creates time pressure, requires rapid vendor procurement, and often costs more due to expedited timelines and limited negotiation leverage.

Legal counsel coordination and technical expert engagement need to happen simultaneously during cure periods. Your attorney evaluates the legal sufficiency of remediation efforts, while technical specialists implement actual fixes. These parallel workstreams require clear communication protocols, shared documentation systems, and coordinated progress tracking to ensure remediation efforts meet both legal and technical standards.

Customer communication and public relations management during cure periods present strategic decisions. Some businesses choose to announce remediation efforts proactively, framing accessibility improvements as positive initiatives. Others handle the process quietly, focusing on technical implementation without public statements. The right approach depends on your brand positioning, customer base, and the specific nature of alleged violations.

For Shopify merchants specifically, the cure period timeline creates unique pressures. Making a Shopify store fully accessible requires theme modifications, app configurations, and content adjustments across multiple store sections. TestParty's 14-day remediation timeline aligns well with typical 60-day cure periods, providing a buffer for testing and documentation before deadlines expire.

Business Implications and Strategic Considerations

Proactive Compliance vs. Notice and Cure Strategy

The cost-benefit analysis of proactive accessibility compliance versus reactive curing reveals a fundamental strategic question: Is it better to invest in accessibility before problems arise, or wait for notice letters and remediate under legal pressure?

The numbers often favor proactive approaches. Early accessibility compliance costs less than emergency remediation because you control the timeline, select vendors without deadline pressure, and avoid legal fees associated with responding to demand letters. Emergency remediation under cure period deadlines typically costs 40-60% more than planned compliance programs due to expedited service fees, compressed timelines, and limited vendor negotiation.

Legal risk reduction through preventive accessibility implementation extends beyond lawsuit avoidance. Proactive compliance demonstrates good faith efforts to serve customers with disabilities, creates documentation trails that support legal defenses if needed, and positions your business as accessibility-forward rather than minimally compliant. These factors can influence settlement negotiations, legal proceedings, and public perception if accessibility claims arise.

Customer experience and brand reputation considerations matter more than many businesses realize. Notice and cure laws don't prevent accessibility complaints—they just delay lawsuits. Customers with disabilities still encounter inaccessible websites, still struggle with unusable interfaces, and still form negative brand impressions. Waiting for legal notice means knowingly providing inferior experiences to a significant customer segment.

Research from Forrester shows that 70% of consumers need accessibility features, making accessibility a market access issue, not just a compliance concern. Businesses treating accessibility as a "wait for the lawsuit" problem miss revenue opportunities, customer loyalty benefits, and competitive advantages that proactive accessibility provides.

Competitive advantage through accessibility leadership versus minimum compliance represents another strategic consideration. Some businesses view accessibility as a compliance checkbox—do the minimum, respond to notices if needed, and move on. Others recognize accessibility as a market differentiator that demonstrates customer-centric values, improves user experiences for everyone, and positions brands as inclusive leaders in their industries.

Legal and Financial Planning Changes

Budgeting for accessibility cure periods and rapid remediation requirements means setting aside contingency funds for potential emergency response. Even businesses with strong proactive compliance programs should budget for cure period scenarios, recognizing that comprehensive accessibility is ongoing and issues can emerge from theme updates, app installations, or content changes.

Financial planning should account for both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include technical remediation, legal counsel, accessibility testing, and documentation services. Indirect costs include staff time diverted to remediation projects, opportunity costs from delayed initiatives, and potential revenue impacts from accessibility issues.

Legal insurance and coverage considerations for notice and cure scenarios require specialized policy review. Standard business liability insurance may not cover accessibility claims, or may include exclusions that limit coverage. Some insurers now offer accessibility-specific policies or riders that provide coverage for legal fees, settlement costs, and remediation expenses.

Cash flow and operational planning for accessibility compliance emergencies become more critical in states with notice and cure laws. A sudden demand letter triggers immediate resource needs—legal counsel, technical experts, testing services, and project management. Businesses without established vendor relationships or contingency budgets face scrambles to secure services under tight deadlines.

Professional service provider relationship development for rapid response represents smart risk management. Identifying accessibility vendors, legal counsel, and testing services before needing them creates response capabilities when cure periods begin. TestParty's done-for-you service model provides this rapid response capability—we duplicate your Shopify theme and implement accessibility fixes in under two weeks, well within typical cure period requirements.

Technical Implementation Considerations

Rapid Accessibility Remediation Capabilities

Technical infrastructure for fast accessibility fix deployment determines whether businesses can successfully cure violations within required timeframes. This infrastructure includes development environments, testing tools, deployment pipelines, and documentation systems that support rapid changes without introducing new issues.

For Shopify merchants, this infrastructure might include theme development environments, staging sites for testing changes, and processes for quickly deploying accessibility fixes to production. Building these capabilities proactively ensures you're ready to respond when cure periods begin, rather than scrambling to establish workflows under deadline pressure.

Vendor and consultant relationship development for emergency accessibility support matters more under notice and cure laws. Not all accessibility service providers can mobilize quickly or work within compressed cure period timelines. Identifying vendors who can respond rapidly, understanding their service delivery models, and establishing contracts or service agreements before needing them creates critical response capabilities.

Automated accessibility monitoring and detection for immediate issue identification helps businesses spot problems before plaintiffs do. Continuous monitoring tools scan your website daily, flagging new accessibility issues as they emerge from content updates, theme changes, or app installations. TestParty provides daily AI scans for Shopify stores, detecting accessibility regressions before they become compliance problems.

Quality assurance and testing procedures for rapid accessibility implementation must balance speed with accuracy. Rushing fixes without proper testing can introduce new accessibility issues or break existing functionality. Effective cure period response requires testing protocols that verify fixes resolve identified issues, don't create new problems, and maintain website functionality across different assistive technologies.

Documentation and Evidence Collection Requirements

Notice period response documentation and legal compliance evidence create a paper trail that demonstrates good faith remediation efforts. This documentation becomes critical if disputes arise about whether you've successfully cured violations within the required timeframe.

Effective documentation includes the original notice letter, initial accessibility audit results, remediation plans, implementation records, testing results, and final compliance verification. Each element serves specific purposes in demonstrating that you've addressed alleged violations comprehensively and within the cure period deadline.

Accessibility improvement tracking and progress demonstration help manage cure period projects and provide evidence of ongoing efforts. Regular progress reports, milestone completion records, and issue resolution logs show systematic approaches to accessibility remediation rather than last-minute scrambles that might not fully resolve problems.

User feedback and complaint resolution documentation during cure periods can support legal defenses if plaintiffs claim you haven't adequately cured violations. Records of customer accessibility feedback, issue resolution timelines, and assistive technology testing demonstrate real-world access improvements beyond technical compliance metrics.

Expert witness and technical validation preparation for legal defense becomes relevant if cure period remediation disputes proceed to litigation. Accessibility experts can review your remediation work, testify about technical compliance, and validate that implemented fixes resolve alleged violations. Having these relationships established before needing them accelerates cure period response.

For Shopify merchants, TestParty provides monthly, date-stamped, human-validated compliance reports that serve as legal and operational documentation. These reports demonstrate ongoing compliance efforts, document remediation work, and provide evidence that supports cure period responses if accessibility notices arrive.

Industry and Market Response Patterns

Business Community Adaptation to Notice and Cure Laws

Corporate policy development and accessibility program integration reflect how businesses are adapting to notice and cure frameworks. Companies operating in states with these laws are developing response protocols, establishing vendor relationships, and creating internal procedures for handling accessibility notices and cure period management.

Progressive businesses recognize that notice and cure laws change tactical response but don't eliminate the strategic value of proactive compliance. They're using these laws as backstops rather than primary accessibility strategies, investing in ongoing compliance while maintaining cure period response capabilities as risk management tools.

Industry association guidance and best practice development has emerged in states with enacted notice and cure legislation. Retail associations, ecommerce groups, and chamber organizations are providing members with resources for navigating these laws, including sample response procedures, vendor recommendations, and compliance planning templates.

Small business resource development and compliance support programs address the reality that smaller companies often lack in-house accessibility expertise or legal counsel. Some industry associations offer group purchasing arrangements for accessibility services, shared legal counsel for notice review, and educational resources about cure period requirements and remediation approaches.

Technology vendor adaptation and service offering evolution reflect market responses to notice and cure demand patterns. Accessibility vendors who previously focused on comprehensive, long-term compliance programs now offer rapid remediation services specifically designed for cure period timelines. This market adaptation demonstrates how legislation shapes service delivery models and vendor capabilities.

Accessibility Community and Legal Response

Disability rights advocacy response to notice and cure legislation has been mixed, as mentioned earlier. Some advocates view these laws as barriers to enforcement that could slow accessibility progress. Others support notice and cure provisions if they're paired with strong compliance requirements and don't create unreasonable enforcement burdens for individuals with disabilities.

The practical impact on access has become a key metric for evaluating notice and cure effectiveness. Early data from Florida suggests that many businesses do remediate accessibility issues during cure periods, suggesting the laws achieve their stated goal of promoting fixes over litigation. However, questions remain about whether these fixes are comprehensive and sustained versus minimum compliance efforts that might not fully resolve accessibility barriers.

Plaintiff attorney strategy adaptation and case filing pattern changes show legal professionals adjusting to notice and cure requirements. Some plaintiff attorneys have shifted focus to states without notice and cure laws, while others have adapted practices to work within these frameworks. Notice letter quality and specificity have improved as attorneys recognize that detailed violation documentation strengthens their positions for post-cure-period litigation if remediation proves inadequate.

Accessibility consulting and remediation service market evolution demonstrates how notice and cure laws reshape the professional service ecosystem. Demand for rapid assessment services, cure period project management, and compliance documentation has increased. Service providers who can mobilize quickly and deliver comprehensive remediation within cure period timelines gain competitive advantages.

User experience and actual accessibility improvement outcomes represent the most important measure of notice and cure legislation effectiveness. If these laws result in genuinely accessible digital properties and meaningful access improvements, they succeed regardless of debates about litigation dynamics. If they produce minimum compliance efforts that don't substantially improve user experiences for people with disabilities, they fail at their fundamental purpose.

Long-Term Strategic Planning and Future Outlook

Federal vs. State Regulatory Development Trends

Potential federal notice and cure legislation and impact on state laws remains uncertain but influential. Federal legislation could establish national standards that override state requirements, create minimum notice and cure frameworks that allow states to impose stricter requirements, or leave state laws intact while providing federal-level guidance.

The political dynamics surrounding federal accessibility legislation suggest that notice and cure provisions remain contentious. Business groups advocate for federal legislation that would standardize requirements across states, reducing compliance complexity for companies operating nationally. Disability rights organizations express concerns about federal frameworks that might weaken existing state enforcement mechanisms or create barriers to access to justice.

DOJ ADA Title III regulatory development and notice cure interaction presents complex regulatory questions. The DOJ has issued Title II web accessibility rules for state and local governments but has not yet finalized Title III regulations for private businesses. How federal regulations might incorporate or reference state-level notice and cure provisions remains unclear, creating uncertainty about long-term regulatory frameworks.

Interstate commerce and multi-state business compliance coordination becomes more complex as notice and cure requirements proliferate with varying provisions across states. Businesses operating nationally must track which states have notice and cure laws, understand different cure period requirements, and maintain compliance systems that account for varying legal frameworks across jurisdictions.

International accessibility law development and US legislative influence suggests that accessibility enforcement patterns are evolving globally. The European Accessibility Act establishes comprehensive accessibility requirements for EU member states, while other countries develop their own frameworks. US businesses with international operations must navigate multiple accessibility regulatory systems simultaneously.

Business Accessibility Program Evolution

Integration of notice and cure compliance with comprehensive accessibility programs represents smart strategic planning. Businesses shouldn't view notice and cure laws as alternatives to proactive compliance but rather as components of broader accessibility strategies that include preventive implementation, continuous monitoring, rapid remediation capabilities, and ongoing improvement.

Accessibility risk management and legal strategy evolution requires thinking beyond minimum compliance or reactive response. Effective strategies integrate accessibility into product development, content creation, vendor management, and operational workflows. Notice and cure laws provide tactical response capabilities within these broader strategic frameworks.

Customer-centered accessibility implementation versus minimum legal compliance represents a fundamental values question. Businesses focused purely on legal risk might view notice and cure laws as opportunities to delay accessibility investment until legally required. Businesses focused on customer experience recognize that accessibility improves usability for everyone, expands market reach, and demonstrates inclusive values that build brand loyalty.

Innovation and competitive advantage through accessibility excellence create business value beyond risk mitigation. Companies that embrace accessibility as a design principle, quality standard, and customer service commitment differentiate themselves from competitors who treat accessibility as a compliance checkbox. This differentiation becomes increasingly valuable as consumers prioritize inclusive brands and accessibility awareness grows.

The long-term trajectory suggests that notice and cure laws represent one phase in accessibility law evolution rather than final frameworks. As digital accessibility becomes more standardized, compliance expectations increase, and accessibility technology improves, legal frameworks will continue adapting. Businesses investing in strong accessibility programs now position themselves well regardless of how notice and cure legislation evolves.

Practical Implementation and Compliance Strategy

Notice and Cure Response Planning

Legal team coordination and response timeline development should begin before any accessibility notice arrives. Identify legal counsel with accessibility expertise, establish communication protocols for urgent notice response, and create decision-making frameworks for evaluating notices and determining remediation approaches.

Response timelines should account for notice evaluation (1-3 days), initial accessibility audit (3-7 days), remediation planning (2-3 days), implementation (varies by complexity), testing (3-5 days), and documentation (2-3 days). These components must fit within cure period requirements while allowing buffer time for unexpected complications.

Technical team mobilization and rapid remediation capability requires pre-established vendor relationships or in-house expertise. For Shopify merchants, this might mean partnering with TestParty before notices arrive, ensuring rapid response capabilities exist when needed. Our service delivers accessibility remediation in approximately two weeks, providing substantial buffer within typical 60-day cure periods.

Customer communication and public relations strategy during cure periods involves decisions about transparency, messaging, and stakeholder engagement. Some businesses proactively communicate remediation efforts to demonstrate commitment to accessibility, while others handle compliance quietly. The right approach depends on your specific situation, brand positioning, and customer relationships.

Success measurement and compliance validation procedures ensure that remediation efforts actually resolve alleged violations and meet cure period requirements. This includes technical testing with assistive technologies, user feedback collection, expert review, and documentation that demonstrates comprehensive accessibility improvements.

Preventive Compliance and Risk Reduction

Accessibility monitoring and early detection system implementation represents proactive risk management that complements notice and cure response capabilities. Continuous monitoring tools scan your website daily, identifying new accessibility issues before they trigger complaints or notices.

Staff training and organizational accessibility competency development creates internal capabilities that reduce dependence on external vendors and improve long-term accessibility sustainability. Training developers, designers, content creators, and product managers on accessibility principles and implementation techniques builds organizational capacity for maintaining compliance.

Vendor selection and third-party service accessibility requirement integration prevents accessibility issues from entering your website through apps, plugins, or integrated services. Requiring accessibility compliance from vendors, reviewing third-party tools for accessibility issues, and including accessibility requirements in vendor contracts reduces risk from external sources.

Continuous improvement and accessibility program maturity development moves businesses beyond minimum compliance toward excellence. This includes regular accessibility audits, user feedback integration, emerging best practice adoption, and proactive enhancement of accessibility features beyond basic WCAG requirements.

The reality is that notice and cure laws provide valuable response time if accessibility issues arise, but they don't eliminate the strategic advantages of proactive compliance. Businesses operating in states with notice and cure provisions should maintain strong accessibility programs while leveraging cure period protections as risk management tools, not as primary accessibility strategies.

What to Do Next

Notice and cure legislation changes the tactical landscape for accessibility compliance, but it doesn't change the fundamental reality: digital accessibility matters for customers, business performance, and legal risk management.

If you operate a Shopify store in Florida, Utah, or states considering notice and cure legislation, you have options. You can wait for accessibility notices and scramble to remediate during cure periods. Or you can implement proactive compliance now, eliminate the notice risk entirely, and provide better customer experiences in the process.

TestParty makes Shopify accessibility compliance straightforward. We duplicate your store theme, implement comprehensive accessibility fixes directly in your code, and deliver compliance in approximately two weeks. After initial remediation, we maintain compliance with daily AI scans, monthly expert audits, and date-stamped compliance reports that document your ongoing accessibility efforts.

This approach works whether you're responding to a notice and cure deadline or implementing proactive compliance. We've helped hundreds of Shopify merchants achieve and maintain accessibility compliance, and we can help you regardless of which state's notice and cure requirements you're navigating.

Book a demo to learn how TestParty delivers Shopify accessibility compliance that protects your business, serves your customers, and provides verifiable documentation of your compliance efforts—all without slowing down your team.

Frequently Asked Questions

What states currently have notice and cure laws for accessibility lawsuits?

Florida enacted a notice and cure law in 2023, and Utah has implemented similar legislation. Tennessee and several other states have proposed accessibility lawsuit reform with notice and cure provisions. The legislative landscape is evolving rapidly as more states consider these frameworks. Notice and cure requirements vary by state in terms of cure period length (typically 60-180 days), damage limitations, and enforcement procedures. Businesses should monitor legislative developments in states where they operate to understand applicable requirements.

How long do businesses have to "cure" accessibility issues under these laws?

Cure periods typically range from 60 to 180 days depending on the specific state law. Florida's legislation provides 60 days for remediation from the date of formal notice delivery. Other proposed state laws offer 90 to 180 days for compliance. The cure period starts when the business receives formal written notice specifying the alleged accessibility violations. Businesses must actually remediate the identified issues within this timeframe to maintain protection from lawsuit filing—simply acknowledging the notice isn't sufficient.

Do notice and cure laws prevent all accessibility lawsuits?

No. These laws delay lawsuit filing during cure periods and may limit certain damages, but businesses must actually fix accessibility issues to maintain protection. If a business receives a notice, fails to cure violations within the required timeframe, or only partially addresses issues, plaintiffs can proceed with normal lawsuit filing and prosecution. Notice and cure laws provide remediation opportunities and reduce immediate litigation pressure, but they don't create immunity from accessibility lawsuits or eliminate legal obligations to provide accessible digital experiences.

Can businesses rely on notice and cure laws instead of proactive compliance?

This represents a risky strategy. Notice and cure laws provide damage limitation and remediation time, not immunity from accessibility requirements or customer service obligations. Proactive compliance is more cost-effective because emergency remediation during cure periods typically costs 40-60% more due to expedited timelines and limited vendor negotiation. Additionally, proactive accessibility provides better customer experiences, avoids public accessibility complaints, prevents negative publicity, and positions your business favorably if legal disputes arise. Waiting for notices means knowingly providing inferior experiences to customers with disabilities.

How do notice and cure laws affect settlement amounts and legal costs?

Notice and cure laws typically reduce settlement leverage for plaintiffs and may limit certain damage types during cure periods. However, businesses still face legal fees for counsel to evaluate notices, coordinate remediation, and ensure compliance. Emergency remediation costs often exceed planned accessibility implementation expenses. Settlement dynamics shift from immediate financial negotiations to remediation planning and compliance verification. While these laws may reduce overall legal exposure if businesses successfully cure violations, early proactive compliance remains more cost-effective than reactive curing under deadline pressure.

Will federal notice and cure legislation override state laws?

This remains uncertain. Federal legislation could establish national minimum standards while allowing states to impose stricter requirements, could preempt state laws entirely and create uniform national standards, or might not pass at all, leaving the current state-by-state patchwork in place. As of early 2025, no federal notice and cure legislation has been enacted despite various proposals. Businesses should monitor both federal legislative developments and state-level requirements in jurisdictions where they operate, maintaining compliance strategies that account for potential regulatory changes at multiple governmental levels.