HB1694 creates the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation” and adds a new section to Missouri law governing civil actions tied to website accessibility claims. The bill defines “access violation” broadly to include allegations that a public accommodation, including a website operated by a Missouri resident, fails to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or comparable state law. It authorizes the attorney general, or an affected Missouri resident, to sue parties, attorneys, or law firms that initiate such litigation for a court determination that the underlying lawsuit is abusive.
The bill sets out factors a court may consider in deciding whether website accessibility litigation is abusive, focusing on whether the primary purpose is to obtain payment rather than improve accessibility. Those factors include repeated similar lawsuits, lack of notice and opportunity to cure, prior sanctions or bad-faith findings, the filer’s Missouri residency or licensure, settlement conduct, and sanctions-related considerations under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03. If a defendant receives written notice and makes substantial good-faith corrections within 90 days, later claims are presumed abusive unless the presumption is rebutted. The attorney general may also intervene, bring actions on behalf of Missouri targets, and issue guidance, but not in a way that blocks legitimate accessibility enforcement.
If a court finds abusive litigation, it may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the target of the abusive suit, and may impose punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the fee award. The bill also requires courts to review the reasonableness of any such award at the conclusion of the underlying litigation. Finally, the new section expires if the U.S. Department of Justice issues federal website accessibility standards under Title III of the ADA, at which point the attorney general must notify the revisor of statutes.
The bill’s impact would be to create a state-level deterrent against serial or settlement-driven website accessibility lawsuits, while preserving the ability to bring legitimate accessibility claims. It would affect plaintiffs, attorneys, law firms, businesses operating websites, and the attorney general’s office by adding a new cause of action and potential fee-shifting/sanctions framework in Missouri civil law.
The available voting history shows strong support in the House, with a 149-0 third-reading vote on the combined committee substitute. No committee transcript is provided, but the bill’s structure suggests generally favorable sentiment toward curbing perceived abusive litigation. The main point of contention is likely the balance between stopping exploitative ADA website suits and avoiding barriers to legitimate disability-access enforcement, especially because the bill creates a presumption of abuse after a 90-day cure period and allows sanctions against plaintiffs and counsel.
HB1694 would add section 537.1250 to Missouri law and create a new statutory framework for identifying and penalizing “abusive website access litigation.” It would expand the role of the attorney general and private Missouri residents in challenging such lawsuits, establish a rebuttable presumption of abuse after notice and a 90-day cure period, and authorize fee awards, costs, and sanctions against parties who bring abusive claims. The bill would also sunset if federal DOJ website accessibility standards are issued under Title III of the ADA.
The bill appears to have broad support in the House, as reflected by the unanimous 149-0 vote on third reading. The overall sentiment is likely favorable among lawmakers concerned about serial litigation and settlement pressure in ADA website cases. At the same time, the bill’s design indicates an effort to preserve legitimate accessibility enforcement, suggesting the debate is less about whether abusive litigation should be addressed and more about how to do so without discouraging valid civil rights claims.
The central tension is between preventing abusive, payment-driven website accessibility lawsuits and protecting legitimate ADA enforcement. Supporters are likely focused on repeated filings, lack of notice to cure, and settlement coercion, while critics may worry that the bill’s presumption of abuse, sanctions, and attorney-general involvement could chill meritorious claims or make it harder for disabled individuals to enforce accessibility rights. The inclusion of websites operated by Missouri residents and the ability to target attorneys and law firms may also be contentious.