Skip to main content
CivicGate

SB 907 MO
Became Law

HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 907, 1154 & 1272 - This act creates the "Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation". The Attorney General on behalf of a class of residents of this state, the state, or a political subdivision that is subject to litigation that alleges any website or web content access violation, or any resident of this state, the state, or a political subdivision of this state that is subject to litigation that alleges any website or web content access violation, may file a civil action against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated such litigation for a determination as to whether such litigation alleging a website or web content access violation is abusive litigation. In determining whether a civil action alleging a website or web content access claim is considered abusive, the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances to find whether the primary purpose of the litigation was to obtain payment from a defendant due to the costs of defending the action in court. The act describes the factors to be considered in making this determination. A defendant who receives notice of an alleged website or web content access violation and in good faith takes substantial steps to correct the violation within 90 days shall have a rebuttable presumption that any subsequent claim for a website or web content access violation is abusive. There shall not be a presumption if the alleged violation is not corrected within 90 days after written notice or service of the petition. Additionally, nothing in this act shall prevent a defendant from filing a motion to dismiss or from notifying the plaintiff, prior to the end of the 90-day period, that the alleged access violation has been corrected in good faith. The Attorney General may intervene or bring an action on behalf of Missouri residents that are targets of abusive website or web content access litigation. The Attorney General may also issue guidance as to when litigation practices are deemed abusive, but such guidance shall not preclude legitimate accessibility enforcement actions. The court may award attorney's fees and costs to the party defending against the abusive litigation. The court may also award punitive damages or sanctions not to exceed three times the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the court. If the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website or web content accessibility under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the provisions of this act shall expire with respect to any entity that has registered as a corporation with the Secretary of State's office, and the state and any political subdivision thereof. This act shall apply to litigation pending on August 28, 2026, and the 90-day correction period shall apply to any defendant in any pending litigation on August 28, 2026, that has complied with the requirements of this act prior to or within 90 days after such date. This act is similar to SB 1471 (2026), HCS/HBs 1694, 1674, 1780, 2056, 2312 & 1755 (2026), and HCS/HBs 1842 & 2150 (2026). KATIE O'BRIEN

MO · session 2026 · Senate · bill

A state bill is a proposed law in a state legislature — separate from the U.S. Congress. Learn more →

Introduced Dec 1, 2025

Latest action (May 7, 2026) Prefiled

Summary

Missouri SB 907 creates a law allowing the state Attorney General or Missouri residents to sue parties, attorneys, or law firms that file website accessibility violation lawsuits if those lawsuits are deemed abusive. A lawsuit is considered abusive if its primary purpose is to obtain payment from a defendant due to litigation defense costs. The law provides a safe harbor for businesses that receive notice of an accessibility violation and make good-faith efforts to fix it within 90 days - those businesses can presumptively argue that any later lawsuit on the same issue is abusive. Courts can award attorney's fees and costs to defendants defending against abusive lawsuits, plus punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the attorney's fees. The Attorney General may issue guidance on what constitutes abusive litigation, though this guidance cannot prevent legitimate accessibility enforcement actions.

AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill (from the OpenStates abstract — no full text available yet) — neutral, and may be imperfect.

Official abstract

HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 907, 1154 & 1272 - This act creates the "Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation". The Attorney General on behalf of a class of residents of this state, the state, or a political subdivision that is subject to litigation that alleges any website or web content access violation, or any resident of this state, the state, or a political subdivision of this state that is subject to litigation that alleges any website or web content access violation, may file a civil action against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated such litigation for a determination as to whether such litigation alleging a website or web content access violation is abusive litigation. In determining whether a civil action alleging a website or web content access claim is considered abusive, the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances to find whether the primary purpose of the litigation was to obtain payment from a defendant due to the costs of defending the action in court. The act describes the factors to be considered in making this determination. A defendant who receives notice of an alleged website or web content access violation and in good faith takes substantial steps to correct the violation within 90 days shall have a rebuttable presumption that any subsequent claim for a website or web content access violation is abusive. There shall not be a presumption if the alleged violation is not corrected within 90 days after written notice or service of the petition. Additionally, nothing in this act shall prevent a defendant from filing a motion to dismiss or from notifying the plaintiff, prior to the end of the 90-day period, that the alleged access violation has been corrected in good faith. The Attorney General may intervene or bring an action on behalf of Missouri residents that are targets of abusive website or web content access litigation. The Attorney General may also issue guidance as to when litigation practices are deemed abusive, but such guidance shall not preclude legitimate accessibility enforcement actions. The court may award attorney's fees and costs to the party defending against the abusive litigation. The court may also award punitive damages or sanctions not to exceed three times the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the court. If the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website or web content accessibility under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the provisions of this act shall expire with respect to any entity that has registered as a corporation with the Secretary of State's office, and the state and any political subdivision thereof. This act shall apply to litigation pending on August 28, 2026, and the 90-day correction period shall apply to any defendant in any pending litigation on August 28, 2026, that has complied with the requirements of this act prior to or within 90 days after such date. This act is similar to SB 1471 (2026), HCS/HBs 1694, 1674, 1780, 2056, 2312 & 1755 (2026), and HCS/HBs 1842 & 2150 (2026). KATIE O'BRIEN

Sponsor (1)

Action history (35)
  1. May 7, 2026 Letter of approval from the Governor · executive
  2. May 6, 2026 Signed by Governor · executive
  3. Apr 23, 2026 Delivered to Governor · executive
  4. Apr 23, 2026 Signed by House Speaker · lower
  5. Apr 23, 2026 Signed by Senate President Pro Tem · upper
  6. Apr 23, 2026 Reported Duly Enrolled Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions & Ethics Committee · upper
  7. Apr 21, 2026 Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed · upper
  8. Apr 21, 2026 S Third Read and Passed · upper
  9. Apr 21, 2026 S concurs in HCS, as amended · upper
  10. Apr 16, 2026 H Third Read and Passed · lower
  11. Apr 16, 2026 HCS, as amended, H adopted --(5627H.09C) · lower
  12. Apr 16, 2026 HA 2 to HCS H offered & adopted (Seitz)--(5627H09.02H) · lower
  13. Apr 16, 2026 HA 1 to HCS H offered & adopted (Seitz)--(5627H09.03H) · lower
  14. Apr 14, 2026 HCS Reported Do Pass H Consent and Procedure · lower
  15. Apr 13, 2026 HCS Voted Do Pass H Consent and Procedure · lower
  16. Apr 8, 2026 Referred H Consent and Procedure · lower
  17. Apr 8, 2026 HCS Reported Do Pass H Commerce - Consent · lower
  18. Apr 8, 2026 HCS Voted Do Pass H Commerce - Consent · lower
  19. Apr 1, 2026 Hearing Conducted H Commerce · lower
  20. Mar 26, 2026 Referred H Commerce · lower
  21. Mar 26, 2026 H Second Read · lower
  22. Mar 25, 2026 H First Read · lower
  23. Mar 25, 2026 S Third Read and Passed · upper
  24. Mar 24, 2026 Reported Truly Perfected S Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee · upper
  25. Mar 24, 2026 Perfected · upper
  26. Mar 24, 2026 SS for SCS, as amended, S adopted · upper
  27. Mar 24, 2026 SA 2 to SS for SCS S offered & defeated (Webber)--(5627S07.01S) · upper
  28. Mar 24, 2026 SA 1 to SS for SCS S offered & adopted (Gregory-15)--(5627S07.03S) · upper
  29. Mar 24, 2026 SS for SCS S offered (Hudson)--(5627S.07F) · upper
  30. Mar 9, 2026 Reported from S General Laws Committee w/SCS · upper
  31. Feb 25, 2026 SCS Voted Do Pass w/SCS SBs 907, 1154 & 1272 General Laws Committee (5627S.05C) · upper
  32. Feb 4, 2026 Hearing Conducted S General Laws Committee · upper
  33. Jan 8, 2026 Second Read and Referred S General Laws Committee · upper
  34. Jan 7, 2026 S First Read · upper
  35. Dec 1, 2025 Prefiled · upper

Full text

The full text hasn’t been imported yet. CivicGate fetches it from the state legislature’s published version documents — check now.

Comments

Comments

Loading comments…

Data from OpenStates. View on OpenStates →