Commerce Committee hears HB 18‑42 to curb alleged 'sue‑and‑settle' ADA website demands
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Representative Sherry Gallick told the committee her bill would preserve ADA enforcement while providing courts tools to identify serial or abusive website‑access lawsuits; small businesses and trade groups testified in strong support, citing demand letters that give 14 days to settle and impose high remediation costs.
Representative Sherry Gallick presented House Bill 18‑42 to the Commerce Committee, saying the bill targets abusive 'sue‑and‑settle' litigation tied to website‑accessibility claims while preserving the rights of people with disabilities to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Gallick told the committee the bill does not weaken accessibility standards or civil‑rights protections but creates an objective process for courts to review patterns of litigation and identify abusive filings. She said Kansas adopted similar language in 2023 and that the bill lists factors courts may consider (repeat filings, missing pre‑suit notice, or lack of intent to improve accessibility).
Small business owners and trade groups spoke in support. Beth Snyder, a small‑business owner, described receiving a demand she said would cost tens of thousands of dollars to remediate on common ecommerce platforms and said compliance software costs can be prohibitive. Katie Lane described retaining counsel to respond to a demand letter and said she feared closing an ecommerce storefront as a result. The NFIB, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, local chambers and industry groups also registered support, calling the practice a 'shakedown' and urging legislative action.
Representatives noted the legislation aims to preserve legitimate ADA claims but deter serial filers who offer quick settlements and non‑disclosure agreements that can shield patterns of behavior. Members encouraged the sponsor to coordinate with stakeholders and to circulate any models or proof-of‑concept data; the sponsor said the bill includes a list of objective factors courts may weigh and that the attorney general or a Missouri resident can bring a challenge seeking fee recovery when litigation is abusive.
The committee concluded the hearing and the record remains open for submitted materials; proponents said they would provide additional documentation to serve as examples of abusive demand letters.