SB 1154 creates the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation” and adds a new section to Missouri law governing lawsuits over alleged website accessibility violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state law. The bill defines a website operated by a Missouri resident or Missouri-registered entity as a “public accommodation” for purposes of the section, and it allows the attorney general or affected Missouri residents/entities to challenge lawsuits they believe are abusive. A lawsuit is treated as abusive only if, under the totality of the circumstances, the court finds its primary purpose was to extract a monetary settlement rather than improve accessibility or enforce accessibility rights.
The bill sets out factors a court may consider in deciding whether litigation is abusive, including repeated similar lawsuits, lack of pre-suit notice, prior sanctions or bad-faith findings, the filer’s Missouri residency or licensure, settlement conduct, and possible violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03. It also creates a rebuttable presumption against a finding of abusive litigation if a defendant receives notice and makes good-faith substantial efforts to correct the alleged barrier within 90 days. If a court finds abusive litigation, it may award attorney’s fees, costs, and additional punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the fee award. The attorney general may intervene, bring actions on behalf of Missouri targets, and issue guidance on abusive practices, but not in a way that blocks legitimate accessibility enforcement.
The bill would affect Missouri’s civil litigation rules by creating a new cause of action and remedy framework specifically for website-accessibility demand suits. It would give defendants and the attorney general a statutory mechanism to challenge serial or settlement-driven ADA website claims, while also preserving legitimate accessibility claims and allowing courts to consider whether defendants acted promptly to fix alleged barriers. The bill also includes a sunset provision: if the U.S. Department of Justice issues federal website accessibility standards under Title III of the ADA, the new Missouri section expires.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill’s design, its likely policy thrust is to curb perceived abusive litigation and reduce pressure on Missouri businesses and website operators, while disability-rights advocates could view it as potentially discouraging enforcement of accessibility rights. The bill’s built-in protections for legitimate claims and the 90-day cure presumption suggest an attempt to balance anti-abuse concerns with continued accessibility compliance.
SB 1154 would add section 537.1250 to Missouri law and create a specialized legal process for challenging alleged abusive website-accessibility lawsuits. It would expand the attorney general’s authority, authorize fee-shifting and sanctions against abusive filers, and establish factors and presumptions courts must use when evaluating whether a website-access claim is abusive. The bill would directly affect Missouri residents, Missouri-registered entities, plaintiffs, attorneys, and law firms involved in ADA website litigation, while leaving legitimate accessibility enforcement intact and terminating the new section if federal DOJ website standards are issued.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. The bill’s structure indicates a generally pro-business, anti-abusive-litigation sentiment, with an emphasis on deterring serial settlement-driven lawsuits. At the same time, the inclusion of a 90-day cure period, a rebuttable presumption, and express protection for legitimate accessibility enforcement suggests an effort to present the measure as a balanced response rather than a wholesale restriction on disability-rights litigation.
The main point of contention is whether the bill appropriately targets abusive demand-suit practices or instead chills legitimate ADA website accessibility enforcement. Supporters are likely to focus on serial lawsuits, settlement pressure, and the need to protect Missouri businesses and website operators from litigation perceived as extortionate. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could make it harder for people with disabilities to enforce accessibility rights, especially if courts give significant weight to settlement behavior, repeated filings, or the filer’s residency/licensure. The attorney general’s expanded role and the punitive sanctions provision may also be controversial, particularly if viewed as shifting leverage away from plaintiffs seeking accessibility compliance.