WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1755

Agriculture; pesticides; warning labels; effective date.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Dell Kerbs

Missouri HB 1755 creates a state tool to flag abusive website-access suits under the ADA; enables AG or residents to seek a ruling, sanction frivolous plaintiffs, and shift costs.

Referred to Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1755

Summary — HB 1755: "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation" (proposed section 537.1250, RSMo)

Purpose and intent

HB 1755 creates a new state-law remedy aimed at identifying and deterring what the bill calls “abusive” litigation that alleges website accessibility violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or comparable state law. The stated goal is to provide a mechanism for Missouri residents and the Attorney General to obtain a judicial determination whether website-access suits are primarily aimed at extracting quick settlements rather than remediating access barriers.

Key definitions

  • “Access violation”: any allegation that a public accommodation (as defined in 42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq.) fails to provide sufficient website access under the ADA or state law.
  • “Public accommodation”: includes a website operated by a resident of Missouri.
  • “Resident of this state”: any person residing in Missouri and any entity registered under chapter 351 with the Missouri Secretary of State.

Who may sue and where

  • The Attorney General may, on behalf of a class of Missouri residents under §507.070, bring a civil action seeking a determination whether underlying website-access litigation is abusive.
  • Any Missouri resident who is subject to litigation alleging a website access violation may likewise file a civil action in state court against the initiating party, attorney, or law firm.

How “abusive litigation” is determined

  • The court (trier of fact) assesses the totality of circumstances, including factors such as:
    • Number of substantially similar suits by the same plaintiff/lawyer/firm in the past ten years and any history of frivolous/abusive litigation;
    • Defendant’s size, resources to defend and to remediate the alleged violation;
    • Whether venue is an obstacle to defense;
    • Whether the filing party is a Missouri resident or licensed to practice in Missouri;
    • Nature and reasonableness of settlement discussions;
    • Applicability of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03(c)/(d) (sanctions).
  • If the Attorney General issues a written determination that a particular suit is not abusive and attaches it to the petition, a rebuttable presumption that the suit is not abusive arises.

Cure periods and presumptions

  • If a defendant in good faith attempts to correct the alleged violation within 30 days of receiving written notice or being served, there is a rebuttable presumption that initiating or continuing litigation is abusive.
  • That presumption does not apply if the alleged violation is not corrected (as determined by the court) within 90 days after notice/service. The court must not decide abusiveness until the earlier of the 90-day period or correction.

Remedies and sanctions

  • If a court finds that a plaintiff initiated abusive litigation, the court may award the defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for both bringing the defensive action and for defending the underlying abusive litigation. The court may also impose punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the fees awarded.
  • At conclusion of the underlying accessibility litigation, the court must review any abusiveness determination and fee awards, weighing the substantive results obtained in the accessibility action.

Sunset/interaction with federal standards

  • If the U.S. Department of Justice issues binding website-accessibility standards under Title III of the ADA, the Attorney General must notify the Revisor of Statutes and this statute will expire.

Practical impact

  • Creates a state-level procedural tool to challenge demand-driven website-access suits and to shift costs to plaintiffs/lawyers found to be abusive.
  • Likely to affect businesses and organizations operating websites (particularly small entities) by offering defensive remedies and potential fee recovery.
  • May reduce some settlement-for-cost pressure on defendants, but could also produce new litigation (declaratory/defensive suits) to test whether suits are abusive.
  • Interacts with federal ADA enforcement and potential future DOJ rulemaking (statute expires if DOJ issues standards).

Procedural status (as provided)

  • Designated in the text as new section 537.1250.
  • Prefiled (H) — introduced January 7, 2025 (per the header). (Check state legislative tracking for current status and any amendments.)

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.