For the better part of a decade, online merchants — especially small and mid-size operators — have faced a quiet but costly threat: a steady stream of cut-and-paste lawsuits alleging that their websites and mobile experiences violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaints are often filed in bulk, rely on automated scans rather than real-world user experiences, and are calibrated to settle for just less than the cost of defending them. For a growing digital economy, the effect has been to tax innovation without meaningfully advancing accessibility.
Missouri lawmakers have now taken a decisive step to break that cycle. On April 21, 2026, the Missouri General Assembly truly agreed to and finally passed Senate Bill 907 — the Act Against Abusive Website or Web Content Access Litigation — and sent it to the Governor’s desk. The Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) views this as a landmark, common-sense reform that preserves the core promise of the ADA while shutting down a cottage industry of shakedown litigation that has disproportionately harmed Missouri’s online entrepreneurs, independent sellers, churches, and nonprofits.
What SB 907 Does
Sponsored by Senator Brad Hudson (R-Cape Fair) and handled in the House by Representative Brian Seitz, SB 907 — delivered to the Governor as HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 907, 1154 & 1272 — creates a new cause of action and framework for identifying and deterring abusive website accessibility lawsuits. At its core, the bill asks a simple question: is the plaintiff truly trying to improve access for people with disabilities, or is the primary purpose of the litigation to extract a settlement from a defendant who cannot afford to litigate?
To answer that question, the bill gives courts a toolkit, defendants a chance to fix problems before being sued, and the Attorney General a new enforcement role. The key operative provisions include:
• A new cause of action for abusive litigation. The Attorney General — acting on behalf of Missouri residents, the state, or a political subdivision — or any individual resident, the state, or a political subdivision who has been sued over an alleged website or web content access violation may file a civil action against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated the underlying suit. The court then determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether the primary purpose of the original litigation was to obtain payment from the defendant due to the costs of defending the action rather than to secure accessibility remedies.
• A 90-day good-faith cure period. If a defendant receives notice of an alleged website or web content access violation and, in good faith, takes substantial steps to correct the violation within 90 days, the defendant is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that any subsequent claim based on that violation is abusive. If the defendant fails to correct the issue within 90 days after written notice or service of the petition, no presumption attaches. Defendants can also file a motion to dismiss or notify plaintiffs within the 90-day window that the issue has been corrected in good faith.
• An active role for the Attorney General. The AG may intervene in or bring an action on behalf of Missouri residents who are targets of abusive website or web content access litigation. The AG is also authorized to issue guidance identifying litigation practices that are considered abusive — while making clear that such guidance does not preclude legitimate accessibility enforcement actions.
• Real economic consequences for abusive filers. If a court finds that litigation was abusive, it may award attorney’s fees and costs to the defending party, and may award punitive damages or sanctions of up to three times the amount of fees awarded. That fee-shifting is critical: it flips the economics of the shakedown model, which relies on defendants settling rather than vindicating themselves.
• A federal-standards sunset. Recognizing that the underlying confusion stems in part from the absence of federal website accessibility standards, SB 907 includes a targeted sunset: if the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website or web content accessibility under the ADA, the act expires with respect to any entity registered as a corporation with the Secretary of State’s office, and with respect to the state and its political subdivisions. In other words, once clear federal rules exist, Missouri’s private-enforcement guardrails give way to the federal regime.
• Broad coverage. During House consideration, the protections were expanded to cover web content in addition to websites — an important clarification for Missouri sellers who operate through large platforms like Etsy, Shopify storefronts, or Amazon listings — and extended to all entities registered with the Secretary of State, including churches and nonprofit organizations, in addition to for-profit businesses.
• Immediate reach. With an effective date of August 28, 2026, the act will apply to litigation pending on that date, and the 90-day correction period will apply to any defendant in any pending case that has complied with the act’s requirements before or within 90 days after August 28, 2026.
Why This Matters for Ecommerce Innovation
Accessibility is not a luxury. The promise of online commerce is that it opens markets to anyone with an internet connection — including, critically, shoppers who rely on screen readers, keyboard navigation, captioning, and other assistive technologies. The eCommerce Innovation Alliance has long supported standards-based accessibility investments, and SB 907 does not change any merchant’s obligation to design inclusive digital storefronts.
What the bill changes is the incentive structure that has emerged around ADA Title III website claims in the absence of clear federal technical standards. Industry reporting indicates that more than 100 Missouri businesses were targeted by website accessibility lawsuits in 2025 alone, a fraction of the thousands of similar filings that now occur each year nationwide. Many suits rely on automated scans that flag common, often trivial issues — a missing alt tag, a color contrast ratio a hair off spec, a transcript absent from a year-old video — and then demand five-figure settlements that are tuned to be cheaper than a defense. The result is predictable: small merchants pay, scans repeat, and actual accessibility outcomes barely improve.
SB 907 rebalances that dynamic in three important ways. First, it gives good-faith merchants a clear path to remediate a problem before being dragged into litigation — the 90-day cure period rewards investment in fixes rather than settlements. Second, it creates meaningful downside risk for lawyers and plaintiffs who treat accessibility claims as a revenue model, including fee-shifting and treble-fee sanctions. Third, it brings the Missouri Attorney General into the process as a check against abusive filings, while explicitly preserving legitimate enforcement. The net effect is to push resources toward accessibility engineering and away from settlement roulette.
Where Things Stand Now
SB 907 moved through the 2026 session with unusual speed and unanimity for an issue that often splits along ideological lines — a reflection of the broad, bipartisan concern about abusive filings. It ultimately passed both the Senate and House in Missouri on unanimous votes.
As of April 23, 2026, SB 907 sits on the Governor’s desk awaiting signature. Because the bill cleared both chambers unanimously and addresses a concern that has generated steady small-business coalition pressure, we expect it to become law well in advance of its August 28, 2026 effective date.
For ecommerce operators — whether a single-proprietor Shopify merchant in Joplin, a mid-size SaaS company in St. Louis, or a national retailer serving Missouri customers — the practical implications are straightforward. Audit your website and key web content as a working baseline. Document your accessibility roadmap and the steps you take in response to any notice. Preserve the evidence of your good-faith remediation efforts. When August 28 arrives, those records become the foundation for the presumption SB 907 creates.
The Bottom Line
SB 907 is the kind of targeted, problem-specific reform that reflects the best of how state legislatures can respond to gaps in federal law. It does not weaken the ADA. It does not immunize businesses that ignore accessibility. And it does not stand in the way of legitimate enforcement by the Attorney General or by individuals with real claims. What it does is redirect the incentives of a litigation industry that has, for too long, monetized ambiguity at the expense of Missouri’s online economy and the very communities the ADA is supposed to serve.
The EIA applauds Senator Hudson, Representative Seitz, and every member of the Missouri General Assembly who voted to send SB 907 to the Governor. We urge the Governor to sign it, and we look forward to working with members across the country as other states consider similar reforms.
Join the EIA today to help strengthen and shape policies that affect all ecommerce businesses. Together, we can continue to create the future of ecommerce. Subscribe to EIA email updates to stay informed on key developments and their impact on your business.
Ecommerce Innovation Alliance provides members with analysis of litigation and regulatory developments affecting online commerce and digital marketing. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
