Missouri's Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation was signed into law and takes effect August 28, 2026. It creates a court process for identifying abusive website accessibility lawsuits and a 90-day correction period for defendants, without changing any organization's underlying accessibility obligations.
Missouri's SB 907 Targets Abusive Website Accessibility Lawsuits: What Changes on August 28
More than 3,100 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court in 2025, about a 27 percent increase over the 2024 total. Missouri has now become one of the first states to pass a website accessibility law aimed specifically at the subset of that litigation a court determines to be abusive, adding to a growing state-by-state patchwork of digital accessibility rules. This post breaks down what Senate Bill 907 does, the litigation trend it responds to, the federal standards gap it references, and what it means for organizations that operate websites accessible to Missouri residents.
Key takeaways
- Missouri's SB 907, codified at section 537.1250 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, takes effect August 28, 2026.
- The law lets a Missouri resident, a registered entity, or the Attorney General ask a court to declare a website access lawsuit abusive.
- The statute defines "resident of this state" to include individuals, entities registered with the Missouri secretary of state, and the state and its political subdivisions.
- A court applies a totality-of-the-circumstances test focused on whether the primary purpose of the suit was to obtain a payment tied to the cost of defending it.
- A safe harbor gives defendants a rebuttable presumption of abusiveness for later claims if they correct an alleged barrier in good faith within 90 days.
- Courts may shift attorney's fees and add punitive damages or sanctions of up to three times the fees awarded.
- SB 907 is a Missouri state-court mechanism. It does not change accessibility obligations and does not shield a business from a federal ADA Title III lawsuit.
- The law expires for businesses and public entities only if the federal government issues website accessibility standards under Title III of the ADA. It does not expire for individuals.
What SB 907 does
The statute creates a new civil action. A Missouri resident or registered entity, or the Attorney General acting on behalf of a class of them, may sue the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated a website access claim and ask a court to determine whether that underlying litigation is abusive. The law defines "resident of this state" broadly to cover three groups: individuals residing in Missouri, entities registered with the Missouri secretary of state, and the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions, including public boards, commissions, agencies, and institutions.
A court makes the abusive-litigation determination by weighing the totality of the circumstances to decide whether the primary purpose of the litigation was to obtain a payment from the defendant driven by the cost of defending the case, rather than to improve accessibility. The statute directs courts to consider factors that include:
- Whether the same plaintiff, attorney, or law firm has filed a high number of substantially similar lawsuits without meaningful efforts to resolve or improve accessibility.
- Whether the plaintiff gave the defendant reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct the alleged barrier before filing suit.
- Any history of sanctions or findings of bad faith against the plaintiff or counsel.
- The nature of settlement discussions and the reasonableness of settlement offers and refusals.
- Whether factors under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03 exist and whether sanctions are appropriate.
The safe harbor
The statute includes a provision it names the Safe Harbor Provision. A defendant who receives written notice of an alleged violation and in good faith takes substantial steps to correct it within 90 days receives a rebuttable presumption that any later claim for that violation is abusive. A defendant that does not correct the alleged violation within 90 days of written notice, or of being served, does not receive that presumption. A court cannot rule on whether litigation is abusive until the 90-day period expires or the alleged violation is corrected, whichever comes first.
The presumption turns on good-faith correction of the underlying barrier. For that reason, adding an accessibility overlay or widget on its own is unlikely to satisfy the standard: an interface layer does not by itself correct the code behind an alleged barrier, and the presumption is written around documented, human-reviewed remediation. Correction tracked through an accessibility issue reporting channel and confirmed by accessibility testing and audit is the kind of substantial step the safe harbor is written to recognize.
Penalties for abusive litigation
If a court finds the underlying litigation abusive, it may order the party that brought it to pay the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of both bringing the action and defending against the abusive litigation. The court may also award punitive damages or sanctions of up to three times the amount of attorney's fees awarded.
The Attorney General's role
The Attorney General may intervene or bring actions on behalf of Missouri residents or entities targeted by abusive litigation, and may issue guidance clarifying when litigation practices are deemed abusive. The statute states that such guidance shall not preclude legitimate accessibility enforcement actions.
A built-in expiration
The law contains a conditional expiration. If the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website or web content accessibility under Title III of the ADA, the Attorney General notifies the revisor of statutes, and the law then expires for registered entities and for the state and its political subdivisions. It does not expire for individual Missouri residents. The statute applies to litigation pending on August 28, 2026, and its safe harbor reaches defendants in pending cases that complied before that date or that fall within the 90-day correction period afterward.
The litigation trend and the federal standards gap
Website accessibility claims have become one of the fastest-growing categories of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, with federal filings rebounding to more than 3,100 in 2025 after several years of high volume. E-commerce sites account for the majority of these cases, and filings are concentrated among a comparatively small group of plaintiffs and firms. Reported counts vary by source and time frame: the full-year 2025 federal total cited here differs from the half-year tallies published elsewhere, which cover only January through June. For the broader national picture, see Clym's overview of ADA web accessibility lawsuits in the USA.
That activity has grown in the absence of a federal technical standard for private businesses. The Department of Justice has never established a uniform technical accessibility standard for public accommodations under Title III of the ADA. In April 2024, the department issued a Title II rule requiring state and local governments to conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA, and legal commentators have written that a parallel Title III rule for private businesses is not expected in the current federal environment. Missouri's expiration trigger references the standard that gap has left unfilled, which means the condition that would sunset SB 907 for businesses is not currently in place.
States have taken different routes to the same problem. Missouri's approach centers on a cure period and a presumption against abusive suits, while Colorado's accessibility law sets statutory per-violation damages and does not include a comparable 90-day correction window.
SB 907 at a glance
Provision | What SB 907 establishes |
|---|---|
New cause of action | Residents, registered entities, or the Attorney General may seek a court determination that a website access lawsuit is abusive |
Who is covered | Individuals in Missouri, entities registered with the secretary of state, and the state and its political subdivisions |
Abusive-litigation test | Totality of the circumstances, centered on whether the primary purpose was a payment tied to defense costs |
Safe harbor | Good-faith correction within 90 days creates a rebuttable presumption that later claims are abusive |
Penalties | Fee-shifting, plus punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the attorney's fees awarded |
Attorney General | May intervene, bring actions, and issue guidance that cannot preclude legitimate enforcement |
Expiration | Sunsets for businesses and government if DOJ issues Title III web standards; not for individuals |
Effective date | August 28, 2026, including litigation pending on that date |
What businesses can do now against the 90-day clock
The statute leaves accessibility obligations unchanged and rewards documented, good-faith remediation completed within the 90-day window. The safe harbor clock starts when written notice arrives, so the steps below are framed around that timeline:
- On receiving written notice: log the notice with its date and open a tracked remediation item through an accessibility issue reporting channel, so there is a dated record that notice was received and acted on.
- In the first weeks: run an accessibility testing and audit against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 Level AA, using automated and manual checks to confirm the alleged barrier and identify related failures.
- Through the period: remediate the barrier in the underlying code rather than relying on a single interface control, then retest to document that the fix works.
- By day 90: confirm the correction, update the accessibility statement, and retain the audit and reporting records that evidence substantial, good-faith steps.
- Ongoing: track applicable accessibility regulations at the federal and state level, since obligations continue to evolve.
How Clym supports accessibility compliance
The safe harbor rewards documented, good-faith remediation, and Clym's accessibility tools are built to produce that documentation. Its accessibility testing and audit framework runs automated WCAG checks alongside guided manual procedures, generating the evidence that a barrier exists and has been corrected. Its accessibility issue reporting creates a dated, trackable channel for receiving notice and recording resolution within the 90-day window. Its accessibility statement publishes current conformance status, and its accessibility widget provides user-facing adjustments that supplement, rather than replace, code-level remediation. These tools do not replace legal advice or guarantee a particular outcome in litigation, but they give accessibility and engineering teams a single place to test, remediate, and document the work the safe harbor is structured to reward.
Conclusion
SB 907 is a litigation-focused statute. It leaves the obligation to build accessible websites in place, attaches consequences to litigation a court finds abusive, and defines a path built around notice, a 90-day correction period, and good-faith remediation. Because the federal Title III standard that would sunset the law for businesses does not currently exist, the statute takes effect on August 28, 2026, and applies to litigation already pending on that date. How courts interpret the abusive-litigation test, and whether other states follow Missouri, will determine the law's longer-term effect.
Frequently asked questions
SB 907 is the Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation, codified at section 537.1250 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. It creates a court process for determining whether a website accessibility lawsuit is abusive and takes effect August 28, 2026.
No. SB 907 is a Missouri state-court mechanism and does not preempt the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. A plaintiff can still bring a website accessibility claim under ADA Title III in federal court. Documented good-faith remediation carried out under the state safe harbor can still support a business's position in a federal case, but it does not bar the federal claim.
No. The law does not alter any organization's obligation to make its website accessible. It addresses litigation that alleges a website access violation, not the underlying accessibility standard.
The statute defines "resident of this state" to include individuals residing in Missouri, entities registered with the Missouri secretary of state, and the state and its political subdivisions, such as cities, school districts, and public colleges. All three groups can use the law now. If the Department of Justice later issues Title III web standards, the law would expire for registered entities and public bodies but continue to apply to individuals.
A defendant who receives written notice of an alleged violation and takes substantial, good-faith steps to correct it within 90 days receives a rebuttable presumption that a later claim for that violation is abusive. A court cannot rule on whether the litigation is abusive until the 90-day period ends or the issue is corrected.
If a court finds the underlying litigation abusive, it may shift the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the party that brought the suit, and may add punitive damages or sanctions of up to three times the fees awarded.
Compliance Content Manager | CIPP/E (IAPP) | CPACC (IAAP)
Alex is a Compliance Content Manager at Clym, where he researches and writes about everything related to data privacy and web accessibility compliance for businesses, helping them stay informed on their compliance needs and spreading awareness about making the web safer and more inclusive. When he's not writing about compliance, Alex has his nose in a book or is hiking in the great outdoors.