As readers know, I rarely blog more than once a week, but it does happen from time to time. This week is a really good week for me to blog twice because the Georgia legislature just completed the session with two bills signed by the Governor of Georgia on topics that we have covered quite a bit. Also, as I mentioned in my last blog entry, I may be taking a two week hiatus with my daughter coming in after the end of the school year for two weeks before she heads off for an internship.

The Governor of Georgia has signed two bills impacting persons with disabilities covering topics we have explored quite a bit in our blog. The two bills are HB 1470 and HB 668. The categories for this blog entry are a bit different, and they are: why HB 1470 will likely not survive a legal challenge; HB 668 brings Georgia into compliance with ADA regulations when it comes to service animals; and thoughts/takeaways.

I

Why HB 1470 Will Likely Not Survive a Legal Challenge

1. HB 1470 provisions allows a defendant facing a website accessibility lawsuit to any time a lawsuit is decided on the merits, involuntary dismissed at any stage of the civil proceedings, or dismissed based on a lack of standing to recover: 1) actual damages for disruption of such person’s or entity’s business or other lost opportunity cost related to the unsuccessful action, or statutory damages of $10,000 whichever is greater; 2) reasonable attorney fees related to the defense of unsuccessful action and to the prosecution of an action under HB 1470; and 3) triple damages when prior to the entry of judgment in the underlying unsuccessful action, the plaintiff was given written notice of the provisions of HB 1470 but refused or otherwise failed to voluntarily dismiss the action. Law is effective on July 1, 2026, and applies to all causes of action accruing after that date.
2. Title III of the ADA essentially works on a private attorney general concept whereby private attorneys can sue for violations and get injunctive relief and attorney fees and nothing else.
3. Websites are often subject to Title III of the ADA, though it can get complicated depending upon the jurisdiction as to when the ADA applies, especially where the business is Internet only. The 11^th Circuit currently has no precedential case law on when a website is subject to the ADA, and the courts around the country have varying views on the issue. That said, my colleague Richard Hunt often notes that the debate over whether a website is subject to the ADA is a bit academic because the Internet is everywhere. So, it would be entirely possible for a plaintiff’s attorney to file in a state that has a liberal view over what is a place of public accommodation.
4. With the exception of a very limited law protecting State of Georgia employees from discriminatory practices, Georgia has no antidiscrimination laws at the state level.
5. Given the provisions of HB 1470, no attorney will take on a website accessibility case in Georgia after this bill becomes law as the financial risks of doing so are just too high. In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), the Supreme Court held that a state law is preempted by federal law where the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Crosby at page 361.
6. The provisions of HB 1470 create an insurmountable obstacle for any person in Georgia to bring an ADA Title III lawsuit alleging website inaccessibility involving a resident of Georgia or a domiciliary of Georgia. Creating such an obstacle to a federal right is something a state cannot do per Crosby. If s state has its own antidiscrimination law and wanted to restrict how that law was used, that would be another analysis, but Georgia has no such law.
7. I recently saw that Missouri passed legislation signed by their Governor also on this topic. However, Missouri does have its own disability discrimination laws unlike Georgia, and the Missouri legislation specifically notes that it pertains to the Missouri law against discrimination.

II

HB 668 Brings Georgia into Compliance with ADA Regulations When It Comes to Service Animals

1. Before HB 668, Georgia statutory provisions on service animals were a mess. Many of those provisions went way below the floor established by DOJ regulations. This bill brings the various Georgia statutory provisions into line with the DOJ regulations. It also gets rid of terminology that was very confusing to say the least.
2. HB 668 makes it a misdemeanor subject to imprisonment and or a fine for anyone who intentionally interferes with a service dog by doing any of the following: 1) frightens, agitates, harasses, or tampers with the dog; 2) delays, obstructs, or hinders the dog in the performance of its duties as a service dog; or 3) allows his or her dog to harass a service dog.
3. HB 668 makes it a misdemeanor subject to fine and or imprisonment to harm a service dog when a person knows or should have known that the dog is a service dog and the person intentionally: 1) causes, or commits an act that is likely to cause, physical harm, pain, or suffering to a service dog; or 2) allows his or her dog to cause physical harm, pain, or suffering to a service dog.
4. HB 668 creates the offense of aggravated harming of a service dog when a person knows or should have known that a dog is a service dog and that person intentionally: 1) causes the death of the dog; or 2) injures a dog in a manner that materially affects its ability to perform as a service dog. The offense of aggravated harming of the service dog is a felony subject to imprisonment and/or a fine.
5. In addition to the misdemeanor or felony charges, the court also “shall,” ordered the defendant to make restitution to the owner of the service dog for the cost of the veterinary expenses incurred in the treatment of such dog and the cost of any restorative training necessary to enable the dog to resume his duties. If the dog dies or is no longer able to engage in the performance of the duties as a result of the intentional acts covered by this legislation, a court “shall,” also include the amount of the actual replacement value of the service dog, including the value of the dog to replace the service dog and all costs associated with training of that dog and its handler or handlers.
6. As far as what is a service dog, Georgia law now tracks the Title II and Title III DOJ regulations.
7. As far as a service dog in training, Georgia law now tracks what is demanded by the ADA by allowing anyone to train their service dog.
8. A service dog in training must be at least six months of age and reliably housebroken, which is consistent with best practices.
9. It makes it a misdemeanor subject to fine and or imprisonment for any individual to deliberately misrepresent himself or herself as qualified to use a service dog or as a trainer of service dogs for the purpose of obtaining accommodations or securing rights available to such a person.
10. Emotional support animals do not have the protections of service animals under this legislation.
11. While HB 668 does not say when it goes into effect, the usual practice would be July 1, 2026, after the bill is signed. In this case, that would be July 1, 2026.

III

Thoughts/Takeaways

1. It’s a mixed bag for persons with disabilities.
2. Hard to believe how 1470 will survive a legal challenge because it involves a State taking away federal rights granted to an individual with a disability to sue for discrimination. It’s a separate question of whether things are out of control with respect to people suing for website inaccessibility. It’s also a separate question as to what standards govern website accessibility. Right now, the universal approach is WCAG level AA 2.1 et. ff., and the legal standard frequently used by the courts is meaningful accessibility.
3. HB 1470 applies to any civil action brought by a claimant against a person or entity of Georgia. Therefore, the plain meaning of the law would allow an attorney representing such a defendant regardless of where the lawsuit was actually filed, to take advantage of HB 1470’s provisions. So, it’s entirely possible that the successful legal challenge to HB 1470 may emanate from a case filed outside of Georgia. On the plaintiff side, if a person or entity being sued resides in Georgia or is domiciled in Georgia, a plaintiff should immediately challenge HB 1470 upon filing of their lawsuit.
4. HB 668 is really good news for persons with disabilities who use service animals as it brings very outdated Georgia law into compliance with DOJ final regulations. It also creates numerous offenses for interfering and/or harming a service animal. It also creates the criminal offense of misrepresentation of a service animal, which many people in the disability community will applaud.
5. Whether Georgia prosecutors will actually take on cases involving people misrepresenting their dogs as service animals is unknown. However, the fact that the law is on the books may act as a deterrent for people to think twice about misrepresenting their dog as a service animal. Similarly, it is unknown whether Georgia prosecutors will take on cases involving interference or harm to service dogs.
6. HB 668 uses the term “shall,” with respect to what a court must do when various provisions are violated. “Shall,” actually has seven different meanings, and people commonly use the term in at least four different ways. That said, the context of HB 668 suggests that “shall,” is used in a mandatory sentence akin to, “must.”
7. Since the misrepresentation law is on the books, the importance of making the two inquiries allowed by the DOJ final regulations where it is not readily apparent what the dog does for a person with a disability becomes even more important than it previously was. Without making those two inquiries, it is hard to understand how a person could be successfully prosecuted for misrepresenting a service animal. Businesses should be making those two inquiries anyway as the inquiries are good preventive law for preventing negligence lawsuits should a dog misbehave. See this blog entry.