Missouri HB 1780: Establishes the "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation"

Bill Text

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1780
103RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE VOSS.
3947H.01I JOSEPH ENGLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 537, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to abusive website
access litigation.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 537, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be
2 known as section 537.1250, to read as follows:
537.1250. 1. (1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Act
2 Against Abusive Website Access Litigation".
3 (2) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
4 (a) "Access violation", any allegation that a public accommodation does not
5 provide sufficient access under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or under
6 state law or any other similar allegation under state or federal law;
7 (b) "Public accommodation", the same as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000 et
8 seq. For the purposes of this section, "public accommodation" includes a website
9 operated by a resident of this state;
10 (c) "Resident of this state", any person residing in Missouri and any entity that
11 has filed with the Missouri secretary of state's office under chapter 351.
12 2. (1) The attorney general, on behalf of a class of residents of this state, under
13 section 507.070 who are subject to litigation that alleges any website access violation,
14 and any resident of this state who is subject to litigation that alleges any website access
15 violation may file a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction within this state
16 against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated such litigation for a determination
17 as to whether such litigation alleging a website access violation is abusive litigation.
EXPLANATION — Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in the above bill is not enacted and is
intended to be omitted from the law. Matter in bold-face type in the above bill is proposed language.

18 (2) In determining whether any litigation that alleges any website access
19 violation constitutes abusive litigation, the trier of fact shall consider the totality of the
20 circumstances to determine if the primary purpose of the litigation that alleges a website
21 access violation is obtaining a payment from a defendant due to the costs of defending
22 the action in court. For the purposes of making this determination, the trier of fact may
23 assess the following factors and any other factors the trier of fact deems relevant:
24 (a) The number of substantially similar actions filed by the same plaintiff,
25 lawyer, or law firm and any history of such plaintiff, lawyer, or law firm bringing
26 frivolous litigation or other litigation declared by a court to be abusive litigation in the
27 past ten years;
28 (b) The number of full-time employees employed by the defendant and the
29 resources available to the defendant to engage in the litigation;
30 (c) The resources available to the defendant to correct the alleged website access
31 violation;
32 (d) Whether the jurisdiction or venue where the action is brought is a substantial
33 obstacle to defending against the litigation;
34 (e) Whether the filing party or lawyer filing the litigation is a resident of this
35 state or is licensed to practice law in this state;
36 (f) The nature of settlement discussions and the reasonableness of settlement
37 offers and refusals to settle. The application of such settlement information shall be
38 used only as provided by this section and shall not otherwise alter the rules of evidence
39 applicable to such court; and
40 (g) Whether any factors under Missouri supreme court rule 55.03(c) exist in the
41 litigation and whether sanctions are appropriate under Missouri supreme court rule
42 55.03(d).
43 (3) Except as provided further, if the defendant in any litigation that alleges a
44 website access violation in good faith attempts to correct the alleged violation within
45 thirty days after being provided written notice or being served a petition or complaint
46 with sufficient detail to identify and correct the alleged violation, there shall be a
47 rebuttable presumption that the subsequent initiation or continuance of litigation that
48 alleges a website access violation constitutes abusive litigation. There shall not be a
49 rebuttable presumption that such litigation is abusive litigation if the alleged website
50 access violation is not corrected, as determined by the court, within ninety days after
51 being provided written notice or being served a petition or complaint with sufficient
52 detail to identify and correct the alleged violation. The trier of fact shall not determine
53 whether such litigation is abusive litigation until after such ninety-day period expires or
54 the alleged violation is corrected, as determined by the court, whichever occurs first.
HB 1780 2

55 3. If the attorney general determines in writing that the litigation allegi