Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missouri House advances package including bill to curb exploitative website‑access lawsuits
Summary
Lawmakers unanimously approved a package of committee substitutes that included an "act against abusive website access litigation," giving the attorney general authority to intervene in suits alleged to extract settlements without lasting accessibility fixes; the package passed 149–0 Feb. 4.
The Missouri House on Feb. 4 approved a package of House committee substitutes that sponsors said will curb abusive website‑access litigation and give business owners recourse when lawsuits are used primarily to extract settlements rather than to secure lasting accessibility fixes.
The motion to third-read and pass a slate of committee substitutes — including the act described on the floor as an "act against abusive website access litigation" — was offered by the lady from Harrison County. She said the bill "gives the attorney general the authority to step in when lawsuits are filed primarily to extract settlements rather than approve accessibility" and allows businesses time to correct issues in good faith.
Members questioned whether settlements had led to permanent remediation and whether federal guidance (the Department of Justice) had, in practice, extended the Americans with Disabilities Act to websites in ways some described as ambiguous. One member asked whether websites required permanent fixes after settlement; sponsors replied many businesses that had settled still had not fixed their websites, and the bill aims to shift the focus to durable accessibility improvements.
Other floor speakers described cross‑partisan support, with trial attorneys and chambers of commerce aligned in backing the measure; one sponsor noted the bill was crafted to encourage good‑faith compliance rather than immediate costly litigation. Another member praised the conversation around accessibility, urging progress "much further than the ADA."
The sponsor renewed her motion and the House voted; the clerk reported ayes 149 and nays 0, advancing the package that included the website‑access litigation measure.
The measure's text and subsequent administrative guidance will determine how often and in what circumstances the attorney general intervenes. Committees and stakeholders will monitor implementation and whether settlements following the bill lead to permanent website remediation.
