SB 907 creates a new section in Missouri law titled the "Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation." The bill is aimed at lawsuits alleging that a website or web content violates accessibility requirements under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or state law. It authorizes the attorney general, or an affected Missouri resident or entity, to bring a civil action to have such litigation declared abusive when the apparent primary purpose is to obtain payment through the cost of defending the case rather than to improve accessibility.
The bill directs courts to evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including whether the same plaintiff or counsel has filed many similar suits, whether notice and an opportunity to cure were provided, whether there is a history of sanctions or bad faith, and the nature of settlement discussions. It also creates a 90-day safe harbor: if a defendant receives written notice and in good faith begins substantial corrective steps within 90 days, later claims may be presumed abusive. If litigation is found abusive, the court may award attorney’s fees, costs, and punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the fee award. The bill also allows the attorney general to intervene or issue guidance, and it sunsets for state and local government entities if federal DOJ accessibility standards are later issued.
In practical terms, the bill would affect plaintiffs, attorneys, and law firms that bring website accessibility claims, as well as Missouri businesses and public entities that are defendants in those cases. It adds a new procedural and remedial framework in chapter 537, RSMo, and applies to litigation pending on August 28, 2026, including certain cases already within the 90-day correction period. It also interacts with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03 by allowing courts to consider sanctions-related factors when deciding whether a case is abusive.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears strongly favorable, with unanimous recorded votes in both chambers on the listed readings. That suggests broad bipartisan support for the measure’s goal of curbing perceived abusive accessibility litigation. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition in the available materials.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the balance between deterring abusive or extortionate lawsuits and preserving legitimate disability-access enforcement. The bill’s standards focus on repeated filings, settlement pressure, and failure to provide a chance to cure, which may be viewed by supporters as protections for businesses and public entities. Critics, if any, would likely argue that the law could make it harder for individuals with disabilities and their advocates to bring meritorious accessibility claims or could discourage prompt compliance with accessibility obligations.
SB 907 would add section 537.1250 to Missouri’s statutes, creating a new cause of action and procedural framework for challenging alleged abusive website accessibility litigation. It gives the attorney general and affected Missouri residents/entities standing to seek a judicial determination that a website-accessibility lawsuit is abusive, authorizes fee shifting and sanctions against abusive litigants, and establishes a 90-day notice-and-cure safe harbor. The bill also references federal ADA Title III standards and provides for expiration of the new provisions for state and local government entities if the U.S. Department of Justice later issues accessibility standards.
The available voting history shows unanimous approval in both the Senate and House readings listed, indicating strong support and little visible opposition in the legislative record provided. With no committee transcripts available, the broader discussion cannot be directly assessed, but the bill’s advancement by wide margins suggests lawmakers generally viewed it as a targeted response to abusive litigation rather than a controversial expansion of liability.
The central tension is between preventing serial or settlement-driven website accessibility lawsuits and preserving access to the courts for legitimate ADA and state-law accessibility claims. Supporters are likely focused on repeat plaintiffs, demand-letter practices, and lawsuits filed without meaningful notice or opportunity to cure, while potential opponents would be concerned that the bill could chill enforcement of accessibility rights, especially for disabled users seeking compliance rather than damages. The safe-harbor period and the attorney general’s authority to define abusive practices are likely the most debated features because they shape when a claim becomes presumptively abusive and who decides that question.