Missouri lawmakers send website accessibility lawsuit bill to governor
Last week, Missouri lawmakers sent Governor Mike Kehoe a bill aimed at curbing what supporters describe as abusive website accessibility lawsuits, a legal issue that has affected small businesses, nonprofits, and regulated industries across the state, including Missouri’s cannabis industry.
Senate Bills 907, 1154 & 1272, combined under the “Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation,” have been delivered to the governor and carry an effective date of Aug. 28, 2026, according to the Missouri Senate’s bill page.
The measure creates a process for determining whether certain website accessibility claims are abusive and would give businesses a 90-day opportunity to take substantial good-faith steps to correct alleged violations.
The proposal follows years of complaints from Missouri businesses that have received demand letters or lawsuits alleging that their websites failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or related accessibility standards.
While the issue has not been limited to cannabis operators, it has been a recurring concern in Missouri’s cannabis industry as the market has emerged, with multiple operators facing website accessibility demand letters or lawsuits in recent years.
Reporting from the News Tribune described the measure as a response to “sue and settle” practices affecting Missouri small businesses and nonprofits. Other reporting has noted that more than 100 Missouri business owners approached lawmakers after receiving lawsuits claiming their websites were not ADA compliant.
In recent years, dozens of licensed and ancillary cannabis businesses in Missouri have faced website accessibility demand letters or lawsuits.
Operators have described the claims as costly, disruptive, and, in some cases, arbitrary, particularly when businesses were willing to make website improvements but were pushed toward settlement before having a clear opportunity to correct the issue.
In 2024, Greenway worked with Nate Davidson of Appos Partners to publish guidance explaining that web accessibility is about building digital tools that can be used by people with visual, auditory, cognitive, and physical impairments.
The primary concern is not whether website accessibility matters.
There is a reason that in many of the predatory cases, the targets of lawsuits are small businesses and startups. These types of companies are especially vulnerable because the cost of defending a lawsuit often exceeds the cost of settlement, especially if that is the design of the case.
The Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation is aimed at a different question: how to separate legitimate accessibility enforcement from litigation that courts determine was primarily filed to obtain a settlement.
Under the bill, the attorney general, a Missouri resident, the state, a political subdivision, or an entity subject to a website access claim could bring a civil action against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated the underlying litigation. The court would then determine whether the access claim was abusive.
In making that determination, courts would consider the totality of the circumstances and whether the primary purpose of the underlying litigation was to obtain payment from a defendant because of the cost of defending the case. The bill allows courts to assess factors including the circumstances surrounding the claim, the conduct of the parties, prior sanctions or bad-faith findings, settlement discussions, and whether sanctions may be appropriate under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03.
The most immediate protection for businesses would be the 90-day correction period.
A defendant that receives written notice of an alleged website access violation and, in good faith, initiates substantial steps to correct it within 90 days would receive a rebuttable presumption that any later claim for a website access violation is abusive. That presumption would not apply if the alleged violation is not corrected, as determined by the court, within 90 days after written notice or service of a petition or complaint with enough detail to identify and correct the alleged violation.
The proposal would also allow the attorney general to intervene or bring an action on behalf of Missouri residents targeted by abusive website access litigation.
If a court finds that litigation was abusive, it could award attorney’s fees and costs to the party defending against the abusive claim. The court could also award punitive damages or sanctions of up to three times the amount of attorney’s fees awarded.
At the conclusion of the underlying website access litigation, the court would be required to review any determination that the litigation was abusive and any attorney fee award under the Missouri Supreme Court rules of professional conduct before issuing judgment.
The bill also includes an expiration provision tied to future federal action. If the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website accessibility under Title III of the ADA, the attorney general must notify the revisor of statutes. Once that notice is received, the Missouri section would expire with respect to entities that have filed with the Missouri secretary of state under Chapter 351.
The Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation would apply to litigation pending on Aug. 28, 2026. The 90-day correction period would also apply to defendants in pending litigation on that date if they comply with the act before or within 90 days after that date.
For Missouri cannabis operators, the bill is not cannabis-specific, but it may have direct business relevance for those who have already, or may potentially, be faced with a lawsuit.
Dispensaries, brands, manufacturers, cultivators, and ancillary companies often depend on websites, digital menus, online ordering tools, mobile applications, email, and other digital platforms to communicate with patients, consumers, retailers, and the public.
For many operators, a website is not just a marketing asset. It is a menu, a product education tool, a location finder, an events hub, a compliance communication channel, and, in some cases, part of the consumer or patient purchasing process.
Supporters of the bill argue that businesses should be able to correct technical website issues before facing litigation costs.
The News Tribune reported that at least 85 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in Missouri in 2025, citing an ADA website accessibility report from EcomBack, compared to 35 in 2024.
For Missouri businesses, including cannabis operators, brands, and ancillary operators, the legislation does not eliminate the need for accessible websites. It does not change ADA obligations or the practical need to make digital content usable for people with disabilities.
Instead, it would create a state-level path for Missouri residents and entities to challenge website access claims that a court determines were primarily filed to obtain payment rather than resolve an accessibility barrier.
