Establishes the "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation"
Summary
HB 1755 would create a new section of Missouri law, chapter 537, titled the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation.” The bill targets lawsuits alleging that a website is inaccessible under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or similar state or federal laws. It defines such claims as “access violations” and treats websites operated by Missouri residents or Missouri-registered entities as “public accommodations” for purposes of the section.
The bill authorizes the Missouri attorney general, on behalf of a class of residents, and any Missouri resident who is sued over a website access claim, to bring a civil action asking a court to decide whether the underlying accessibility lawsuit is “abusive litigation.” In making that determination, the court would consider the totality of the circumstances, including repeated similar filings, the parties’ resources, venue burdens, settlement conduct, and whether sanctions under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03 may apply. The bill also creates rebuttable presumptions tied to whether a defendant tried to fix the alleged violation within 30 days and whether the alleged violation remained uncured after 90 days.
If a court finds the initiating party brought abusive litigation, it may award attorney’s fees, costs, and punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the attorney’s fees awarded. The bill also allows an attorney general written determination that a case is not abusive to create a rebuttable presumption against abuse. Finally, the section would expire if the federal Department of Justice later issues website accessibility standards under Title III of the ADA, making the state provision temporary and dependent on federal action.
Impact
HB 1755 would add a new cause of action and fee-shifting framework to Missouri tort and civil procedure law aimed specifically at website accessibility lawsuits. It would affect plaintiffs, attorneys, law firms, and businesses or website operators that are Missouri residents or Missouri-registered entities, while also giving the attorney general a formal role in screening or supporting claims. The bill would likely influence how ADA website-access cases are filed, defended, settled, and potentially deterred in Missouri courts.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect concern about perceived abusive or extortionate website accessibility litigation, while still acknowledging accessibility claims by allowing a cure period and an attorney general determination that a case is not abusive. The overall posture of the bill is protective of defendants and skeptical of serial litigation.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether the bill discourages abusive lawsuits or instead chills legitimate ADA website accessibility enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize repeated filings, settlement pressure, and litigation costs as evidence of abuse, while opponents would likely argue that the bill creates barriers for people seeking accessible websites and could weaken compliance incentives. The 30-day cure presumption, the 90-day timing rule, and the attorney general’s role are likely to be the most debated features, along with the bill’s fee-shifting and punitive sanction provisions.