Utah & Missouri Anti-ADA Lawsuit Bills: What Businesses Need to Know in 2026

⚖️

Key Takeaways

1Utah SB 68 creates a rebuttable presumption of abuse if a business remediates within 90 days of notice — effectively a safe harbor
2Missouri introduced 9+ identical bills in its 2026 session — the most aggressive state-level pushback against ADA web lawsuits in the country
3A federal ADA 30 Days to Comply Act (bipartisan, Dec 2025) could create a nationwide pre-suit notice requirement
4These bills don't eliminate accessibility obligations — the ADA still applies, and courts in Wisconsin just confirmed coverage for online-only stores
5Proactive monitoring is your best defense — whether these bills pass or not, continuous accessibility scanning lets you remediate fast and document good faith

Why States Are Fighting Back Against ADA Website Lawsuits

ADA website accessibility lawsuits have exploded in recent years. Nationally, 2024 saw approximately 8,800 ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal courts — a 7% increase from 2023, according to Seyfarth Shaw's year-end report. In Missouri alone, ADA website lawsuits surged from 35 in 2024 to 85 in 2025 — a 143% increase.

The pattern driving legislative action is striking: a small number of plaintiffs and attorneys file hundreds of nearly identical lawsuits against small businesses. In Missouri, a single attorney — Kevin Puckett of Kansas City — has filed 126 lawsuits on behalf of one plaintiff, Robert Glen Myers, targeting restaurants, ice cream shops, museums, and even nonprofits like the Blue Springs City Theater. Settlements typically range from $5,000 to $40,000, with the bulk flowing to attorneys rather than plaintiffs or actual accessibility improvements.

As Scott Fetterman, owner of Fetterman's Deli in Parkville, testified to the Missouri legislature: "There's no compensation for the plaintiff. None of this money goes back to the plaintiff. It all goes back to the lawyer."

The irony? When KMBC investigated, they found that Puckett's own websites had 11-17 accessibility errors each — the same types of issues his lawsuits alleged against small businesses.

Utah SB 68: The 90-Day Safe Harbor

On January 2, 2026, Utah introduced Senate Bill 68, titled the "Abusive Website Access Litigation" bill. The legislation creates a powerful new legal framework that could reshape how ADA website lawsuits play out in Utah.

What SB 68 Does

→Creates a new cause of action allowing businesses — or the Attorney General — to challenge ADA web accessibility lawsuits as "abusive"
→Establishes a rebuttable presumption of abuse if the business makes a good-faith effort to fix accessibility issues within 30 days, or successfully remediates within 90 days of receiving notice
→Enables counter-suits — businesses can sue back if the original ADA claim is deemed abusive
→Allows courts to award attorney's fees, sanctions, and even punitive damages against abusive filers

The key provision is the 90-day safe harbor. Here's how it works: if your business receives notice of a website accessibility issue and you successfully fix it within 90 days, the law presumes the lawsuit against you was abusive. The plaintiff would then have to overcome that presumption to proceed — a significant legal hurdle.

This fundamentally changes the calculus for serial litigators. In the current system, there's no incentive for a plaintiff to give notice before suing — and no penalty for targeting businesses that would have fixed the issue if they'd known about it. SB 68 creates that incentive structure.

💡 What This Means for Your Business

The 90-day window only protects you if you can actually remediate within 90 days. That requires two things: (1) knowing what's broken, which means continuous accessibility monitoring, and (2) having a remediation plan ready. Businesses running automated accessibility scans can identify and fix issues proactively — potentially before any lawsuit is ever filed.

It's worth noting that legal analysts at Converge Accessibility have pointed out that Utah is part of the Tenth Circuit, which already has the lowest number of web accessibility lawsuits in the country. This has led some to view SB 68 as partly a political statement. Still, the legal framework it establishes could serve as a model for states that do face heavy litigation volumes.

Missouri's Nine-Bill Blitz: The Most Aggressive State Response

While Utah introduced a single bill, Missouri took a dramatically different approach. In their 2026 legislative session, Missouri Republicans introduced nine nearly identical bills — HB 1674, HB 1694, HB 1755, HB 1780, HB 1842, HB 2150, HB 2312, SB 907, and SB 1154 — all titled the "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation."

The flood-the-zone strategy was deliberate. By introducing multiple versions across both chambers, Missouri lawmakers maximized the odds that at least one bill would advance. On January 22, 2026, five of the House bills passed the House General Laws Committee and moved to the Rules Committee before heading to the Senate.

What Missouri's Bills Would Do

→Give courts and the Attorney General power to determine if an ADA website lawsuit is "abusive" based on multiple factors
→Grant businesses a 30-day "good faith" cure period to address accessibility issues before litigation can proceed
→Enable counter-suits against attorneys filing claims deemed predatory, with attorney's fees, costs, and punitive damages
→Consider abuse factors like the number of lawsuits filed by the plaintiff, whether the business took prompt corrective action, and whether the suit appears intended to secure quick settlements

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has been vocal in supporting the legislation: "The victim of the ripoff is the one who should benefit the most, not the lawyer." Her office has flagged the pattern of a single attorney filing 126 lawsuits through one plaintiff as exactly the kind of abuse the legislation targets.

The legislation was modeled after Kansas's 2023 "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation", which permits counter-suits and has reportedly deterred filings across the border. Rep. Brian Seitz (R), sponsor of HB 1674, told KMBC that "small businesses in our southwest region contacted me. They were concerned that this was happening to other businesses."

The Federal Bill: ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

The state-level pushback is happening alongside a new federal effort to reform ADA enforcement. On December 9, 2025, Representatives Michael Lawler (R-NY) and Lou Correa (D-CA) introduced the bipartisan ADA 30 Days to Comply Act.

How the Federal Bill Works

Direct notification required. Disabled individuals must notify businesses directly about ADA violations before filing suit.
30-day remediation window. Businesses receive 30 days to fix the issue or demonstrate "significant progress" toward remediation.
Litigation only after non-compliance. If the business fails to act within the window, the plaintiff can then proceed with a lawsuit.

The bill is backed by the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the National Small Business Association, and the Associated General Contractors of America. Rep. Lawler framed the bill as protecting both sides: "The ADA was created to guarantee access and protect the rights of Americans with disabilities, not to fuel drive-by lawsuits that do nothing to actually fix the problem."

However, similar legislation has a rocky track record. H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, passed the House 225-192 in February 2018 but was blocked in the Senate after opposition from over 200 disability rights organizations. The new bill will likely face similar organized opposition from groups like the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) and the ACLU, who argue that notice-and-cure provisions shift the burden onto disabled individuals and remove incentives for proactive compliance.

Side-by-Side: How the Bills Compare

Feature	Utah SB 68	Missouri Bills	Federal (30 Days)
Cure Period	30 days (good faith) / 90 days (full)	30 days (good faith)	30 days (or show progress)
Counter-Suits	✅ Against abusive filers	✅ Against attorneys	❌ Not included
Punitive Damages	✅ Available	✅ Available	❌ Not addressed
AG Oversight	✅ Can challenge lawsuits	✅ Can investigate patterns	❌ Not included
Pre-Suit Notice	Implied (notice triggers safe harbor)	Required for cure period	✅ Mandatory
Status (Feb 2026)	Introduced Jan 2, 2026	Passed House committee Jan 22	Introduced Dec 9, 2025
Based On	Kansas 2023 model	Kansas 2023 model	H.R. 620 (2018)

The Disability Rights Perspective: Why Critics Are Worried

It would be irresponsible to cover these bills without acknowledging the serious concerns raised by disability rights organizations. The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) has articulated the core counter-argument clearly:

"Businesses could employ a 'wait and see' approach, continuing to violate the law with impunity and excluding countless people with disabilities from their goods, services, facilities, and accommodations until a person with a disability determined that the business was out of compliance with the ADA and provided the business with the proper notification."

The disability rights argument has several important components:

1.It shifts the burden to disabled individuals. Rather than requiring businesses to proactively comply with a 35-year-old law, notice-and-cure bills effectively make people with disabilities into unpaid compliance auditors who must identify and report violations.
2.It removes incentives for proactive compliance. Why invest in accessibility today when you can wait until someone complains and then take 30-90 days to fix it?
3.Serial plaintiffs exist because serial violations exist. From the disability rights perspective, the sheer volume of lawsuits reflects the scale of non-compliance, not the greediness of plaintiffs.
4.Title III doesn't even authorize monetary damages. The large settlements that make headlines come from state laws like California's Unruh Act ($4,000 minimum per violation). Federal safe harbors wouldn't affect state law claims.

These are legitimate concerns. The ADA was enacted to ensure equal access for people with disabilities, and any reform that weakens enforcement should be scrutinized carefully. The key question is whether these bills can curb genuinely abusive litigation without creating a loophole for businesses to delay compliance indefinitely.

The Bigger Picture: A Fracturing Legal Landscape

What makes the current moment especially complex is that different parts of the country are moving in opposite directions simultaneously.

📈 Expanding Coverage

Wisconsin: Courts confirmed ADA covers online-only stores with no physical location (Jan 2026)
Washington: WLAD doesn't require intentional discrimination — easier to sue than under the ADA
New Jersey: New state accessibility law signed January 20, 2026
DOJ: Rejected Fashion Nova's $5.15M settlement for lacking monitoring

📉 Contracting Enforcement

Utah: SB 68 creates 90-day safe harbor against ADA web lawsuits
Missouri: 9+ anti-lawsuit bills advancing through legislature
Kansas: 2023 law already detering filings
Federal: ADA 30 Days to Comply Act introduced December 2025

Meanwhile, the Eighth Circuit (which includes Missouri) is seeing courts dismiss ADA web claims more frequently. In January 2026 alone, a Missouri federal judge dismissed two cases — one because the restaurant's website was "purely informational" and didn't offer goods or services, and another because the blind plaintiff lived 250 miles away and couldn't credibly claim he intended to visit.

The takeaway for businesses? The legal landscape depends heavily on where your customers are, not just where your business is located. A Missouri business serving Wisconsin customers could still face ADA web claims in the Seventh Circuit, even if Missouri passes its anti-lawsuit bills.

What Your Business Should Do Right Now

Regardless of whether these bills pass, the strategic calculus for businesses is clear. Here's a practical roadmap:

1. Start Monitoring Now — Don't Wait for a Lawsuit

Every safe harbor provision — whether Utah's 90-day window, Missouri's 30-day cure period, or the federal 30-day notice requirement — requires businesses to remediate after receiving notice. But you can't fix what you don't know is broken.

Automated accessibility monitoring tools scan your site continuously and flag WCAG violations as they appear. This means you can fix issues before any plaintiff sends notice — making the safe harbor provisions relevant only as a backup rather than your primary defense.

2. Document Everything

If you do receive a demand letter or lawsuit, your documented history of monitoring and remediation efforts is your strongest evidence of good faith. Courts in both Utah and Missouri would consider whether a business took "prompt corrective action" — and a record of regular scans and fixes establishes exactly that.

3. Fix the Common Issues First

The most frequently cited violations in ADA website lawsuits are well-documented: missing alt text, poor color contrast, empty links, inaccessible forms, and missing form labels. These are the exact issues automated scanners flag. Fixing them reduces your legal exposure significantly.

4. Don't Rely on Overlays

Accessibility overlay widgets claim to "fix" your website with a single line of JavaScript. They don't. Overlays have been specifically rejected by the National Federation of the Blind and multiple courts. Using an overlay as your sole compliance strategy could actually increase your legal risk because it demonstrates you were aware of the issue but chose an inadequate solution.

5. Publish an Accessibility Statement

A visible accessibility statement on your website demonstrates commitment and good faith. Include your standards target (e.g., WCAG 2.2 Level AA), your monitoring approach, and a contact method for reporting issues. This costs nothing and provides evidence of proactive intent.

The Math: Prevention vs. Litigation

The financial case for proactive monitoring is straightforward:

Cost of a Lawsuit

$5,000–$40,000

Typical settlement range in Missouri (per KMBC reporting)

Cost of Prevention

$29/month

Continuous accessibility monitoring with RatedWithAI

Even at the low end of the settlement range ($5,000), that's over 14 years of monthly monitoring. At the high end ($40,000), it's over 114 years. And settlements don't include the cost of legal defense, business disruption, or the reputational damage of being named in an ADA lawsuit.

Whether you're in Utah, Missouri, or any other state, the most cost-effective approach is the same: find and fix accessibility issues before someone else finds them for you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do these bills mean I don't have to worry about website accessibility?

No. These bills target abusive litigation — they don't change the underlying ADA requirements. Your website still needs to be accessible to people with disabilities. In fact, in states like Wisconsin, courts are expanding ADA coverage to online-only stores. The bills simply give businesses better legal tools to defend against frivolous lawsuits if they're making good-faith compliance efforts.

I'm not in Utah or Missouri. Do these bills affect me?

Not directly — these are state laws. However, the federal ADA 30 Days to Comply Act would apply nationwide if passed. And even state-level reforms can affect you indirectly: Kansas's 2023 law reportedly pushed some serial litigators to shift their activity to neighboring states. The broader trend toward safe harbor provisions may also encourage your state to introduce similar legislation.

What's the difference between a 30-day and 90-day safe harbor?

Utah's SB 68 has a two-tier system. If you demonstrate "good faith" effort within 30 days, the law begins working in your favor. If you fully remediate within 90 days, there's a rebuttable presumption that the lawsuit was abusive. Missouri's 30-day cure period is more straightforward: fix it in 30 days and you're in a stronger legal position. The federal bill similarly requires 30 days or showing "significant progress."

Will the federal bill actually pass?

It faces significant headwinds. The nearly identical H.R. 620 passed the House in 2018 with bipartisan support (225-192) but was blocked in the Senate after opposition from 200+ disability rights organizations. The current political climate may be more favorable to business-side reforms, but organized opposition from groups like DREDF and the ACLU remains strong. Even if it stalls federally, the growing number of state-level bills suggests the legislative trend will continue.

How does continuous monitoring help me even without these bills?

Monitoring helps regardless of the legislative outcome. If the bills pass, monitoring documentation proves you were already acting in good faith — strengthening your safe harbor defense. If they don't pass, monitoring still catches issues before they become lawsuits. Either way, you reduce your legal exposure, improve the user experience for people with disabilities, and build a defensible compliance record.

What about the ADA Title II deadline in April 2026?

That's a separate but related issue. The ADA Title II deadline on April 24, 2026 requires state and local governments to make their digital content accessible. While the anti-lawsuit bills mainly address Title III (private businesses), the Title II deadline is creating additional urgency across the entire accessibility landscape. The overall trend is clear: accessibility enforcement is intensifying, even as some states push back on litigation tactics.

Don't Wait for the Safe Harbor — Build Your Own

Whether these bills pass or not, proactive monitoring is the strongest defense against ADA web accessibility lawsuits. RatedWithAI scans your site continuously for WCAG violations, documents your compliance history, and helps you fix issues before they become legal problems — starting at $29/month.

Scan Your Site Free →See the Lawsuit Data

Sources

Legal Analysis

Utah & Missouri Anti-ADA Lawsuit Bills: What Your Business Needs to Know in 2026