If you spend any time speaking with Missouri small business owners, such as those who manage a single restaurant, an independent insurance company, or a local real estate firm, you will ultimately hear the same grievance, albeit expressed slightly differently each time. There’s a letter. A formal demand, occasionally. It claims that the website does not adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act. A settlement offer, typically in the low five figures, comes next. The plaintiff is little known to the owner. But the math is very familiar: either pay immediately or hire an attorney to determine if paying quickly was the wisest course of action in the first place.
Senate Bill 907 aims to break that practice. The measure, which was signed by Governor Mike Kehoe, gives Missouri companies ninety days after receiving written notice to address any alleged violations of digital accessibility before a civil case can proceed. Additionally, if the litigation seems abusive, it allows defendants to countersue the filing firm. This provision is specifically targeted at companies that have developed a sort of cottage economy out of scanning thousands of small business websites for technical errors. Missouri is now one of a few states trying with this strategy, and the results will be closely monitored.
The law is the result of real complaints. In numerous reported cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys have employed automated methods to identify movies without closed captions, inadequate color contrast on menus, and missing alt text on product photos. The ensuing lawsuits frequently resemble boilerplate letters with various defendants inserted in. This is annoying for a chain restaurant that has a legal staff. It can become an existential expense for an indie bookstore with a single part-time web manager. This has been presented as a long-overdue fix by business advocacy groups, particularly the National Federation of Independent Business.
The framing might be correct. It might also be unfinished. Disability advocates point out that websites, where people shop groceries, schedule doctor’s appointments, and peruse restaurant menus before deciding whether to visit, are, in many respects, public accommodations. They contend that keeping a barrier in place for ninety days does not constitute a procedural delay. For someone who uses a screen reader or is unable to watch a film without captions, that means three months of inaccessibility. When you see what it’s like for a consumer who is blind or visually impaired to come upon a checkout page that just doesn’t read aloud, the argument takes a new turn.
Speaking with folks on both sides of this issue gives the impression that the law is attempting to address a genuine issue with a potentially overcorrecting tool. In certain instances, the lawsuits labeled as “abusive” are actually abusive. In other situations, they are also the only effective way that individuals with disabilities can encourage companies to comply. For companies that may ordinarily take on cases that are valid, such as those where compliance has been delayed for years, the countersuit clause adds an additional layer of risk.
Additionally, it’s difficult to ignore the larger pattern. State legislatures are becoming more and more involved in federal civil rights frameworks, frequently in relation to digital enforcement. Similar measures have been suggested in Florida, Texas, and a few other states. These days, Missouri’s is among the best. What transpires after the first ninety-day windows close will determine whether SB 907 becomes a model or a cautionary tale. Businesses that make quick fixes to their websites will appear to be proof of concept. Those that don’t will make a completely different impression. In any case, rather than becoming quieter, the discussion concerning who the open internet truly opens to is becoming more lively.
