What Is an Accessibility Right to Cure Law?

An accessibility right to cure law is a state law that gives a site owner a dated chance to fix a named barrier after written notice, and then lets a court weigh that effort when deciding whether a website access lawsuit was abusive. It is not a general federal rule, and it is not a pause button that stops every case. The useful question is narrower: what did the state law create, who can use it, and what record does it reward.

Key takeaways

• Utah has an enacted law in effect since May 6, 2026, with 30 day and 90 day routes.
• Missouri HB 1694 passed the House in February 2026 but did not itself become operative law.
• Missouri's operative law is SB 907, effective August 28, 2026, with a 90 day substantial steps presumption.
• In both states, the cure clock sits inside a separate action about abusive litigation, and the notice must give enough detail to identify and fix the barrier.
• A dated record of the notice, the fix, and the retest is the part you control.

What the phrase means in state law

The phrase "right to cure" sounds like a right to fix a problem before anyone can sue. The Utah and Missouri texts checked here work differently. They create a separate state action in which a defending party, or the Attorney General for that party, can ask a court to decide whether a website access lawsuit was abusive. Inside it, a timely cure effort creates a rebuttable presumption, a starting point, not a final answer. The other side can rebut it by showing bad faith or failure to complete reasonable measures in time.

That distinction matters for how you read a demand letter. A letter that names a page, a barrier, and a fix gives you something to work from. A letter that names only a site and a payment figure does not. Utah's text is explicit: the notice must carry sufficient detail to identify and cure the violation. If it is vague, do not guess at the barrier, keep the letter, note its receipt date, and get advice on what it alleges.

This is general information, not legal advice. If you have received a demand letter or been sued, talk to a qualified attorney.

Utah: a law now in effect

Utah SB 68, titled Disability Litigation Amendments, created Part 13, Abusive Website Access Litigation, in the Utah Code, effective May 6, 2026, so it is in effect as of October 28, 2026. A defending party is a resident defendant in a website access lawsuit. A filing party is the individual, attorney, or law firm that started it. A website access violation is an allegation that a website fails to meet accessibility standards required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The test for abuse looks at purpose. A trier of fact shall find a lawsuit abusive if it determines by a preponderance of evidence that the filing party's primary purpose was to obtain monetary payment rather than to remedy a violation. The court weighs repeat filings, prior frivolous or abusive suits, the defending party's ability to engage and to cure, and whether venue makes defence unreasonably difficult.

Utah then gives two routes to a rebuttable presumption: a good faith attempt to cure within 30 days after receiving written notice with sufficient detail to identify and cure the violation, or a cure within 90 days after that notice. The court may not decide abuse until those periods expire or it determines the violation is cured, whichever occurs first. If it finds abuse, it may award fees and costs, punitive damages, and sanctions, capped at three times the fee award.

Read that result with care. The Utah text does not say a fix erases the barrier or ends the original case on its own. It says a timely, good faith effort changes how a court weighs a separate claim that the litigation was abusive. The barrier still needs a real fix, and the fix still needs proof.

Missouri: a House bill and a separate enacted law

Missouri HB 1694 is the bill named in many early summaries, and its status is easy to misread. Its introduced summary describes a bill that would create the Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation. Under it, the Attorney General or an adversely affected resident could file a civil action asking whether alleged website access litigation was abusive. If a defendant in good faith attempted to correct the violations within 90 days after written notice, the defendant would have a rebuttable presumption that a later claim was abusive, rebuttable by showing failure to complete reasonable measures within 90 days or bad faith. The court would also weigh repeat filings, notice and opportunity to correct, prior bad faith findings, settlement conduct, and court rule compliance.

The House passed the combined substitute for HB 1694 and related bills on February 5, 2026, by 149 votes to 0, and it was second read and referred to the Senate General Laws Committee on February 26, 2026. That is not enactment. Do not cite HB 1694 as Missouri law in force.

Missouri's operative law here is SB 907, enacted in early May 2026 and operative August 28, 2026. Like the House proposal, it lets a resident defendant or the Attorney General seek a court finding on abusive litigation, with a rebuttable presumption where a defendant receives written notice and in good faith initiates substantial steps to correct within 90 days. A court finding abuse may order fees and costs, plus punitive damages or sanctions capped at three times the fee award.

What a useful cure record contains

A cure clock is only as good as the record behind it. If you receive a detailed notice, build a file a stranger could follow in six months:

1. Save the notice, with its receipt date and the exact pages and barriers it names.
2. Write the barrier in plain words, such as a missing checkout label, with the page address and a dated note.
3. Record the fix, its date, and who made it, plus any owner approval a visible color change needs.
4. Retest the same page after the fix, with a keyboard pass and, where it fits, a screen reader pass, and record the date and result.
5. Keep the dated scan or report showing the finding before the fix and the result after it. A single undated note saying "fixed" is weak evidence.

Do not wait for a perfect fix to start the record. Utah's 30 day route rewards a good faith attempt, and Missouri's 90 day route turns on substantial steps in good faith. Start on the day the notice arrives. If a barrier sits inside a third party widget you cannot change, record that limit and the workaround on your own page.

How Axeazy helps with this exact issue

A right to cure law rewards dated work, and a dated record is what Axeazy gives you. Every scan and fix is recorded with a date and time. For a site with its own GitHub repository, fixes arrive as a real pull request with a visible code diff for review and merge. For other sites, the scan gives computed fix values and a guided checklist to apply by hand. Read the honest scope on the capabilities page, and read how the scan works.

For the wider picture, start with the state by state overview and the demand letter guide on our blog. For habits that pair with a cure clock, see the client contract article and the remediation log article.

Be clear about the limit. A scan record is not a legal finding, and Axeazy does not decide whether a lawsuit was abusive. A scan can flag a missing label or broken tab order on your own page and record it with a date and time. It cannot reach inside a third party hosted embed it cannot reach, nor turn a fix into a legal outcome. That decision belongs to a court, with advice from your own attorney.

Want a quick read on your own site? Run Axeazy's free 60 second scan , with no signup.

Last checked: October 28, 2026.

FAQ

Does a right to cure law stop a website accessibility case?

No, not in the Utah and Missouri texts checked here. Those texts create a separate state action about abusive litigation, with a rebuttable presumption for a timely cure effort. They do not say a fix alone ends the original case.

How long is the cure window in Utah?

Utah gives two routes: a good faith attempt within 30 days after detailed written notice, or a cure within 90 days after that notice. The notice must carry sufficient detail to identify and cure the violation.

Is Missouri HB 1694 the law in Missouri?

No. HB 1694 passed the Missouri House in February 2026 and moved to a Senate committee, but the operative Missouri law here is SB 907, operative August 28, 2026. Check the bill number and effective date before relying on any summary.

Sources

• Utah Code, Part 13, Abusive Website Access Litigation, checked October 28, 2026
• Utah SB 68 bill page, checked October 28, 2026
• Missouri HB 1694 introduced summary, checked October 28, 2026
• Seyfarth Shaw, Missouri Passes Law to Deter Abusive Litigation, checked October 28, 2026
• ADA.gov, Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA, checked October 28, 2026