Status of the Digital Library Protection Act and more...

Status of the Digital Library Protection Act

As many of our library readers already know, the Illinois House has passed House Bill 5236, the Digital Library Protection Act. If approved by the Illinois Senate, and signed by the Governor, this new law would prevent Illinois libraries (and any library consortium acting on behalf of a library) from entering into contracts with publishers regarding "electronic literary materials" (defined as e-books and digital audio books) that would:

restrict a library from licensing literary materials from publishers;
restrict a library from employing technological protection measures necessary to loan e-books and digital audiobooks;
restrict a library from making preservation copies of e-books and digital audiobooks;
restrict a library from loaning e-books and digital audiobooks through interlibrary loans;
restrict a library from loaning e-books and digital audiobooks to borrowers;
restrict a library from determining loan periods for licensed e-books and digital audiobooks;
require a library to obtain a license for e-books and digital audiobooks at a price greater than what is charged to the public for the same item;
restrict the number of licenses for e-books and digital audiobooks that the library can acquire after the item is available to the public;
require the library to pay a cost-per-circulation fee for loan e-books and digital audiobooks, unless the fee is substantially lower in aggregate to the cost of purchasing the item outright;
restrict the number of times the library can loan an e-book or digital audiobook over the course of the contract if the contract imposes a time-based limitation on the duration of the license;
restrict or limit the library's ability to virtually recite text or display artwork to library patrons that would be more restrictive than what is recited or displayed at the library facility;
restrict the library from disclosing the terms of the contract to any other Illinois library; and
require, coerce, or enable the library to violate the Library Records Confidentiality Act.

If passed, the bill would also prohibit any provision in a contract that would require a different state law to be applied in any dispute. Note that the bill would not apply to any existing contracts with publishers.

The bill has been sent to the Illinois Senate for its consideration.

PAC Finds Village Board's Closed Session Violated OMA

The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor (PAC) issued its third binding opinion for 2026 finding a village board in violation of the Open Meetings Act relating to a closed session. PAC Op. 26-003.

A sitting trustee on a village board submitted a complaint to the PAC claiming that the village board went into closed session to discuss "personnel issues" but instead discussed outstanding TIF loans. The village filed a response arguing that the board's closed session discussion fell under the "litigation exception" to the OMA, and that the mayor had mispoke in citing the personnel exception.

The PAC reviewed the village's response, the meeting minutes, and the recording of the closed session. First, the PAC noted that the closed session discussion did not pertain to personnel issues. Further, the PAC stated that even if the board had discussed personnel issues in closed session, a generic reference to "personnel" is not adequate to identify a specific OMA exception. The PAC also found that the board failed to record the board's public vote on the motion in the meeting minutes. As a result, the PAC determined that the village board violated the OMA by not publicly disclosing and recording into the minutes the specific exception authorizing the closed session.

The PAC also rejected the village's argument that the litigation exception applied because litigation was an option for the village in dealing with the oustanding TIF loans. First, the PAC found that the board did not cite to that exception in open session or make the necessary finding in closed session as to why litigation was probable or imminent. Second, the PAC noted that litigation was "merely a distant possibility," which was not sufficient to fall under the probable or imminent litigation exception to the OMA.

The PAC ordered the village board to publicly release its verbatim recording of the meeting as a remedy to the OMA violation.

Illinois Bill Proposes Regulations for E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and Similar Devices

After Public Act 103-899 was signed into law in August 2024 (regulating low-speed electric bikes), some Illinois local governments adopted a patchwork of regulations governing the operation of low-speed electric bicycles and low-speed electric scooters in their communities. In an effort to promote statewide uniformity, the Illinois General Assembly is considering Senate Bill 3336, which, if passed in both houses, would enact sweeping changes to the authority and scope of local government regulations for these and other devices and vehicles.

This post analyzes some of most important changes proposed by the bill.

Electric Micromobility Devices (EMDs)

First, SB 3336 would repeal Section 11-1518 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code), and replace it with a new section regulating “electric micromobility devices.” The bill broadly defines an electric micromobility device (EMD) to mean a light-weight, low-speed, electric-powered device primarily used for personal transportation and operated at speeds up to 28 miles per hour (including low and high-speed electric scooters, electric skateboards, and electric unicycles).

If passed, SB 3336 would generally permit people at least 16 years of age to operate an EMD on any highway, roadway, or bicycle lane/path in Illinois in a manner that does not impede vehicular traffic—but would prohibit their operation on sidewalks, interstate highways, or on highways with a posted speed limit exceeding 35 mph (unless it has a designated bike lane). For EMD’s operating in excess of 28 miles per hour, SB 3336 would prohibit their operation on any public highway, bike path, or bike lane, regardless of speed limit. The bill expressly exempts operators of EMD’s from obtaining a drivers license (or permit), registration, certificate of title, or liability insurance. SB 3336 would also authorize local law enforcement agencies to confiscate and impound an EMD operated in violation of the Code, and release the EMD upon payment of a reasonable administrative fee related to its confiscation and impoundment. If passed, SB 3336 would expressly preempt local governments (including home rule units) from regulating EMDs in a manner inconsistent with the Code.

Motor Driven Cycles

Second, SB 3336 creates a new section regulating the operation of “motor driven cycles,” which are broadly defined to include (1) every motorcycle, moped, and every motor scooter with an internal combustion engine of less than 150 cubic centimeter piston displacement, (2) an electric motor with a nominal power rating of greater than 750 watts but less than or equal to 8,000 watts, (3) or motorized pedalcycles and every electric bicycle or gas-powered bicycle that is not a low-speed electric bicycle or low-speed gas bicycle.

If passed, SB 3336 would generally allow people possessing a drivers license (or an instruction permit in certain circumstances) to operate a motor driven cycle on public highways, streets, and roadways—but would prohibit their operation on sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, shared-use paths, off-road bike trails, natural surface trails designated for bike use, or any other bike-specific facility established by State or local law. In contrast to EMD’s, operators of motor driven cycles must have a drivers license (or permit), liability insurance, and must generally acquire a certificate of title. Similar to EMD restrictions, SB 3336 also authorizes local law enforcement agencies to confiscate and impound motor driven cycles operated in violation of the Code, and release them upon payment of a reasonable administrative fee related to its confiscation and impounding. If passed, SB 3336 would expressly preempt local governments (including home rule units) from regulating motor driven cycles in a manner inconsistent with the Code.

Low-Speed Electric Bicycles (E-Bikes and Gas-Bikes)

SB 3336 also proposes various changes to the Code provisions regarding low-speed electric bicycle (e-bikes) and low-speed gas bicycle regulations (gas-bikes). Currently, the Code has no minimum age requirement to operate Class 1 and 2 e-bikes. SB 3336, if passed, would require operators of Class 1 and 2 e-bikes to be at least 15 years old. Currently, the Code authorizes local governments to prohibit the operation of e-bikes on designated bike paths. SB 3336, if passed, would take that power away from local governments, and instead authorize the operation of e-bikes on any bike path unless “the State agency with jurisdiction” prohibits using e-bikes, or a specific class of e-bike, on designated bike paths. SB 3336, if passed, would also expressly preempt local governments (including home rule units) from regulating e-bikes or gas bikes in a manner inconsistent with the Code.

Toy Vehicles

SB 3336 also proposes a new definition for “toy vehicle,” which includes any battery powered ride-on toy that (i) is designed to not exceed 10 miles per hour, (ii) includes any number of wheels or handlebars or a steering wheel, and a seat or platform, and (iii) is designed for children under 8 years of age, including products like "Razor," "Power Wheels," and similar products.

If passed, SB 3336 would authorize the operation of toy vehicles on local government property, unless the local government adopts an ordinance or resolution specifically prohibiting their use. Toy vehicles would also be prohibited from operating on sidewalks and paths designated for bicycles. The bill, if passed, would preempt local governments (including home rule units) from regulating toy vehicles in a manner less restrictive than the Code.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

• View comments • Track comments •

DOJ Extends Title II ADA Web Content Accessibility Compliance Deadlines

On April 20, 2026, the DOJ published an interim final rule (link here) to extend the compliance deadlines under the new Title II Americans with Disabilities Act Rule that set technical standards requiring state and local government web content and mobile apps to meet the technical standards of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.1, Level AA.

The Rule previously required state and local governments with a population of 50,000 or more to comply with the accessibility guidelines by April 24, 2026. State and local governments with a population of less than 50,000, and any special district governments, were required to comply by April 26, 2027.

The DOJ’s new interim final rule extends the deadline for state and local governments to comply with the new Rule by at least a year, as follows:

State and Local Government Size	New Compliance Date
0 to 49,999 persons	April 26, 2028
Special district governments	April 26, 2028
50,000 or more persons	April 26, 2027

Post Authored by Katie Nagy, Ancel Glink

Supreme Court Declines to Hear AI Copyright Case

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in an Artificial Intelligence (AI)/copyright case. Thaler v. Perlmutter. You can read the court of appeals decision here.

A Missouri artist had applied for a copyright registration for visual art he created through the use of AI technology. The U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application because the work was not created by "human authorship" as required to register a copyright. He sued, and both the district court and court of appeals upheld the Copyright Office's denial of his application. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear his appeal, meaning that the Copyright Office's rejection of his application for a copyright for the AI work stands.

This wasn't the first time the Copyright Office rejected registration applications by artists for work generated by AI based on the lack of "human authorship" in the work. This case had been followed by artists, musicians, photographers, and other creators who have used AI in their creative works and were hoping for a different outcome in court. For now, at least, work created by AI is not copyright eligible.

Municipal Minute