WeVote

Bill

Bill

SB 907

HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 907, 1154 & 1272 - This act creates the "Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation". The Attorney General on behalf of a class of residents of this state, the state, or a political subdivision that is subject to litigation that alleges any website or web content access violation, or any resident of this state, the state, or a political subdivision of this state that is subject to litigation that alleges any website or web content access violation, may file a civil action against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated such litigation for a determination as to whether such litigation alleging a website or web content access violation is abusive litigation. In determining whether a civil action alleging a website or web content access claim is considered abusive, the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances to find whether the primary purpose of the litigation was to obtain payment from a defendant due to the costs of defending the action in court. The act describes the factors to be considered in making this determination. A defendant who receives notice of an alleged website or web content access violation and in good faith takes substantial steps to correct the violation within 90 days shall have a rebuttable presumption that any subsequent claim for a website or web content access violation is abusive. There shall not be a presumption if the alleged violation is not corrected within 90 days after written notice or service of the petition. Additionally, nothing in this act shall prevent a defendant from filing a motion to dismiss or from notifying the plaintiff, prior to the end of the 90-day period, that the alleged access violation has been corrected in good faith. The Attorney General may intervene or bring an action on behalf of Missouri residents that are targets of abusive website or web content access litigation. The Attorney General may also issue guidance as to when litigation practices are deemed abusive, but such guidance shall not preclude legitimate accessibility enforcement actions. The court may award attorney's fees and costs to the party defending against the abusive litigation. The court may also award punitive damages or sanctions not to exceed three times the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the court. If the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website or web content accessibility under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the provisions of this act shall expire with respect to any entity that has registered as a corporation with the Secretary of State's office, and the state and any political subdivision thereof. This act shall apply to litigation pending on August 28, 2026, and the 90-day correction period shall apply to any defendant in any pending litigation on August 28, 2026, that has complied with the requirements of this act prior to or within 90 days after such date. This act is similar to SB 1471 (2026), HCS/HBs 1694, 1674, 1780, 2056, 2312 & 1755 (2026), and HCS/HBs 1842 & 2150 (2026). KATIE O'BRIEN

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Brad Hudson

Missouri bill restricts website accessibility-related lawsuits to shield operators from litigation while potentially reducing disabled users' enforcement mechanisms for digital accessibility rights.

Letter of approval from the Governor
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 907

Legislative bill overview

SB 907 creates legal protections for website operators against what sponsors characterize as abusive litigation related to website access. The bill aims to limit certain types of lawsuits filed against websites, particularly those involving accessibility claims or terms-of-service violations. The legislation establishes standards for what constitutes "abusive" website access litigation and creates barriers to filing such cases.

Why is this important

Website accessibility litigation has become increasingly common, with plaintiffs suing businesses over compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state accessibility laws. This bill could significantly affect the enforcement mechanism for digital accessibility rights and determine whether websites face legal accountability for excluding disabled users. The outcome will impact both website operators' litigation costs and disabled individuals' ability to challenge inaccessible digital platforms.

Potential points of contention

  • Accessibility enforcement balance: The bill may reduce incentives for websites to comply with accessibility standards by limiting legal remedies, potentially harming disabled users' ability to access online services
  • Definition of "abusive": The specific definition of abusive litigation in the bill's language could either legitimately screen out frivolous cases or improperly shield genuinely non-compliant websites from accountability
  • Disabled rights advocates vs. business community: Disability rights organizations typically oppose such restrictions as barriers to civil rights enforcement, while business groups support litigation cost reduction

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

Sign in to ask a question.