Three states changed the economics of website accessibility lawsuits in 2026. Utah (May 6), Georgia (July 1) and Missouri (August 28) each enacted laws that let a sued business go after the plaintiff — and the plaintiff's lawyers — when a website accessibility claim is abusive or fails.
None of them stops a lawsuit from being filed. None changes what the ADA requires. But each rewards the same thing: a business that fixes problems quickly and can prove it.
Here is how each law works, where they differ, and what to do if you operate in one of these states.
Side by Side: How the Three Laws Compare
| Missouri SB 907 | Georgia HB 1470 | Utah SB 68 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| In effect | August 28, 2026 (also applies to suits pending that day) | July 1, 2026 (claims accruing on or after) | May 6, 2026 |
| Who can use it | Missouri residents sued over website access — individuals, registered businesses, the state and local governments; the attorney general can sue for a class of residents | A person or entity of Georgia sued under the federal ADA over website accessibility | Utah individuals and businesses with their principal place of business or registered office in Utah; the attorney general can sue on their behalf |
| What triggers it | Litigation found to be abusive | The plaintiff loses: judgment on the merits, involuntary dismissal, or dismissal for lack of standing | A suit whose primary purpose is getting paid rather than fixing access |
| Fix-it presumption | Good-faith substantial steps to correct within 90 days of written notice or a detailed complaint → rebuttable presumption the claim is abusive | None | Good-faith attempt to cure within 30 days, or a cure within 90 days, of detailed written notice → presumed abusive |
| Who can be made to pay | The party, attorney or law firm that filed | The plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney | The individual, attorney or law firm that filed |
| What you can recover | Attorney's fees and costs; punitive damages or sanctions up to 3× the fee award | Actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus attorney's fees; triple damages if the plaintiff was given written notice of the law and did not dismiss | Attorney's fees and costs; punitive damages and sanctions together capped at 3× the fee award |
Missouri SB 907: A 90-Day Safe Harbor
There is no pre-suit notice requirement. A plaintiff can still sue without warning. Whether the plaintiff gave reasonable notice and a chance to fix the problem before filing is one factor a court weighs in deciding whether the suit was abusive.
The safe harbor is the core of the law. The 90-day clock starts when the business receives written notice — or is served with a complaint — detailed enough to identify and correct the problem. A business that begins substantial, good-faith corrective steps within those 90 days gets a rebuttable presumption that the claim is abusive. A court cannot decide the question until the 90 days run or the problem is fixed.
Who can sue, and for what. Any Missouri resident subject to a website access suit — including businesses registered with the Secretary of State and the state's political subdivisions — can sue the party, attorney or law firm that filed it. The attorney general can sue on behalf of a class of residents, may intervene, and may issue guidance on which practices count as abusive. Courts may award attorney's fees and costs for both the new action and the defense of the original suit, plus punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the fees.
A partial sunset. If the U.S. Department of Justice issues ADA Title III website standards, the law stops applying to registered businesses and governments. It would still protect individuals.
Georgia HB 1470: When the Plaintiff Loses, the Plaintiff Pays
The trigger. A person or entity of Georgia is sued under the federal ADA over website accessibility, and the claim is decided against the plaintiff on the merits, involuntarily dismissed at any stage, or dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing.
The recovery. The business can then recover from the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney: actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney's fees. If the plaintiff was given written notice of this law before judgment and did not voluntarily dismiss, damages are tripled. The claim must be filed within two years of the judgment.
The limits. It covers federal ADA website claims only — not state-law claims. It has no cure period. And it only helps a business that wins, so it does nothing for a business that settles.
Utah SB 68: Fast Fixes Are Rewarded
What makes a suit abusive. A website access suit is abusive when its primary purpose is to obtain money rather than to fix a website access violation. Courts weigh a list of eight factors.
The presumption. A suit is presumed abusive if, after receiving written notice detailed enough to identify and cure the problem, the business made a good-faith attempt to cure it within 30 days or actually cured it within 90 days.
The remedy. A Utah defendant — an individual, or a business with its principal place of business or registered office in Utah — can sue the individual, attorney or law firm that filed, or the attorney general can sue on its behalf. Available relief includes attorney's fees and costs, plus punitive damages and sanctions capped together at three times the fee award. The provisions are set to repeal on July 1, 2031.
The Federal Bill That Hasn't Moved: H.R. 7328
Despite its name, the bill's text has no small-business size limit. It was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the day it was introduced and has seen no action since. For now, there is no federal cure period for ADA website claims.
Build the Record These Laws Reward
Every one of these laws favors a business that can show what it fixed and when. Start with a dated scan of your site, then document every fix.
Scan Your Website FreeWhat to Do If You Operate in Missouri, Georgia or Utah
• Fix the specific issue first, then the rest. Correct what the notice names, then the other machine-detectable failures a plaintiff's scan would find.
• Keep before-and-after evidence. Dated scan reports, screenshots and a short log of who fixed what, and when.
• Call counsel early. In Georgia, triple damages depend on giving the plaintiff written notice of the law before judgment — that is a lawyer's step, and timing matters.
• Do not rely on a widget. One in four ADA website suits in early 2026 targeted a site that already had one.
• Outside these states, do the same things anyway. Dated documentation is also what persuades federal judges. A Chicago case from October 2026 shows how
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I stop an ADA website lawsuit in Missouri by fixing my site?
Fixing your site does not prevent a suit from being filed, but it matters a great deal. Under Missouri SB 907, a business that begins substantial, good-faith corrective steps within 90 days of written notice or a sufficiently detailed complaint gets a rebuttable presumption that the claim is abusive. That can support recovering attorney's fees and other relief from the party, attorney or law firm that filed.
Does Georgia's HB 1470 apply to state-law claims?
No. Georgia's law applies to federal ADA website accessibility claims brought against a person or entity of Georgia. It is triggered when the plaintiff loses on the merits, is involuntarily dismissed, or is dismissed for lack of standing, and it allows recovery of the greater of actual damages or $10,000 plus attorney's fees.
Is there a federal cure period for ADA website lawsuits?
No. Federal law has no notice-and-cure period for ADA website claims. H.R. 7328 would create a 180-day notice period followed by a DOJ complaint process, but it has not moved since it was referred to committee on February 3, 2026. State laws like Missouri's and Utah's cannot block a federal lawsuit from being filed.
Missouri, Georgia and Utah took three different routes to the same goal: making weak, copy-paste website lawsuits more expensive to bring. Missouri and Utah reward a business that fixes problems quickly. Georgia punishes plaintiffs who lose.
All three depend on the same thing from you — a site that actually works for people using assistive technology, and records that prove when you made it that way.
Sources: Missouri SB 907, truly agreed text • Georgia HB 1470, as passed • Utah SB 68, enrolled • H.R. 7328 text
Related reading: 2026 lawsuit data: Illinois now leads • Good-faith documentation guide • What courts want to see in remediation records
Disclaimer: This article summarizes state statutes as enacted and is not legal advice. Whether a law applies to a specific lawsuit depends on facts and procedure; consult a licensed attorney in your state.