SB 1502 establishes the “Missouri Consent and Likeness Protection Act” and creates new rules governing contracts, waivers, and other terms that seek permission to use a person’s identifiable attributes. The bill defines identifiable attributes broadly to include a person’s name, image, photograph, voice, likeness, signature, biometric identifiers, digital replica, persona, and similar characteristics. It would make unenforceable any adhesion contract, disclaimer, waiver, or condition of entry that attempts to waive or limit a person’s right to sue for unauthorized use of those attributes, or that grants use rights without allowing judicial relief.
The bill requires that consent for commercial or promotional use be affirmative, explicit, written, separately negotiated in good faith, and distinct from general terms and conditions. It also requires the consent document to specify the use, the parties authorized to use the attributes, the duration of use (capped at 20 years), and whether reasonable and just compensation is provided. Consent cannot be implied from entering a premises, attending an event, buying a ticket, being in a public space, or failing to object to posted terms. Any consent obtained through adhesion contracts or waivers would be conclusively presumed invalid.
The bill would add a new section to Chapter 434, RSMo, and would significantly expand Missouri law governing publicity rights, consent, and enforceability of release language tied to a person’s identity. It would create a private right of action for individuals whose identity attributes are used in violation of the section, with remedies including actual damages, statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation, disgorgement, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees. It also authorizes the attorney general to investigate and seek injunctions and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. The law would apply to entities doing business in Missouri and to individuals physically present in the state at the time of the alleged violation.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer- and individual-protection bill aimed at preventing overbroad waivers and hidden consent in contracts involving a person’s likeness or identity. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so no formal legislative debate or vote-based sentiment can be assessed from the available materials. The overall tone of the proposal is protective of individual rights and skeptical of boilerplate contractual consent.
The main points of contention likely involve the bill’s broad definition of identity attributes, its invalidation of common contractual tools such as waivers, arbitration clauses, jury-trial waivers, and limitation-of-liability provisions, and the requirement for affirmative written consent with compensation. Businesses, event operators, media companies, platforms, and others that use images, voices, digital replicas, or likenesses could view the bill as imposing significant compliance burdens and litigation exposure. Supporters would likely emphasize protection against forced consent and unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person’s identity, especially in settings where entry or participation is conditioned on signing broad releases.