Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missouri lawmakers hear six bills aimed at curbing repetitive website-access lawsuits; small businesses, chambers press for clear definitions and cure periods
Summary
Six similar bills were presented to the House General Laws Committee proposing remedies and a 30–90 day cure period to limit what sponsors and business groups described as predatory, repeated website-access suits; witnesses included small-business owners who described demand letters, high legal costs, and settlements.
Six House bills described as versions of an "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation" were presented to the House Committee on General Laws. Sponsors said the bills are intended to protect small businesses from repetitive demand letters and lawsuits that they call fee-driven rather than remedial.
Representative Maisie Christiansen, sponsor of House Bill 1694, said her bill would authorize the Missouri attorney general to bring or intervene in cases, provide factors courts may use to find litigation "abusive," establish a 90-day cure period for businesses that begin making good-faith fixes, permit courts to award fees and sanctions for abusive suits, and include a sunset if the U.S. Department of Justice issues formal web-accessibility standards. "HB 1694 protects small businesses from these predatory practices while fully preserving legitimate ADA enforcement," Christiansen said.
Representative Brian Seitz, who presented a bill modeled on Kansas law (House Bill 1674), described the filings as "ambulance chasing" and said the Kansas statute, which took effect July 1, 2023, had "stopped this abusive type of litigation" there. Seitz and other sponsors said the goal is to let merit be tested and to give defendants options to recover defense fees.
Committee members broadly pressed sponsors on drafting details. Representative Engel asked how a court would determine the plaintiff's intent when the bill considers whether the claim's "primary purpose" was monetary; sponsors answered that a trier of fact would weigh the totality of the circumstances and listed factors such as repeated copy-and-paste filings and lack of pre-suit notice.
Business owners and trade groups delivered extensive testimony. Web developer Sandy Waggett of MSW Interactive Designs said her company's clients faced hundreds of demand letters and that remediation can cost roughly $2,500 per site; she urged at least a 60- to 90-day cure window. "In just the first six months of 2025, 2,014 ADA website accessibility lawsuits were filed nationwide," Waggett told the committee, citing national counts shared with the panel.
Small-business witnesses described demand letters from a firm they identified as ADA Legal Team and named attorneys (transcript references include Kevin Puckett and Greg Sconzo/Plunkett in witnesses' accounts). Kevin Halderman said his lawsuit was served in 08/2024 and that his case later resulted in a successful motion to dismiss but substantial attorney fees. Scott Fetterman, a restaurant owner, said demand letters demanded settlement and that award money often stays with lawyers rather than injured plaintiffs.
Trade groups including the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Associated Industries of Missouri, and the Missouri Insurance Coalition all gave supportive testimony while urging clearer drafting, particularly for a definition of "abusive litigation" and workable cure periods.
Speakers debated safe-harbor drafting: several sponsors proposed a statutory cure period (30 to 90 days was discussed), and some witnesses urged a technical safe harbor or checklist tied to remediation steps (for example, alignment with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG 2.1), so businesses would know what to fix.
Legal context: witnesses and counsel referenced the ADA and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and one panelist cited a recent federal decision (Myers v. Mary Jane Bourbon & Chop House LLC) and a federal bulletin on Title II enforcement as part of the evolving federal context. Counsel for business groups noted that the Kansas law has not been widely litigated to repeal and that some sponsors are mirroring its language.
What's next: The committee took testimony but did not vote; sponsors and stakeholders signaled they will work on language changes, particularly to tighten definitions and ensure the cure period and safe-harbor mechanics function as intended.
