The act provides that an artificial intelligence (AI) system shall be declared a non-sentient entity and shall not be considered or recognized as a person, spouse or domestic partner, or designated, appointed, or serve as any officer, director, manager, or similar role within any company.

AI systems shall not be recognized as legal entities capable of owning title to property, as described in the act. Any assets associated with the AI system shall be attributed to human individuals or organizations responsible for the AI's development, deployment, or operation.

Any harm caused by an AI system shall be the responsibility of the owner or user of the AI system, as described in the act.

Owners of AI systems shall maintain proper oversight and control measures over any AI system if its outputs or recommendations could reasonably be expected to impact human welfare, property, or public safety. Failure to provide such oversight may constitute negligence or another basis of liability. Any attempt to shift blame on an AI system shall be void.

Developers, manufacturers, and owners of AI systems shall develop safety mechanisms to prevent harm to individuals or property, as described in the act.

If an AI system causes significant harm, courts may pierce the corporate veil to hold parent companies accountable for the harm, as described in the act. Liability protections under corporate law shall not be used to evade responsibility for direct harm caused by AI systems. Owners or developers of AI systems involved in severe incidents resulting in significant bodily harm, death, or property damage, shall notify the relevant authorities and comply with any subsequent investigations.

The provisions of the act shall apply to all AI systems developed, owned, deployed, or operated on or after August 28, 2026.

The act is identical to HB 1462 (2025).

JULIA SHEVELEVA

SCS/SBs 907, 1154 & 1272 - This act creates the "Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation". The Attorney General on behalf of a class of residents of this state who are subject to litigation that alleges any website access violation, or any resident of this state who is subject to litigation that alleges any website access violation, may file a civil action against the party, attorney, or law firm that initiated such litigation for a determination as to whether such litigation alleging a website access violation is abusive litigation. A civil action alleging a website access claim is considered abusive only if the court, based on the totality of the circumstances, finds the primary purpose of the litigation was to obtain a monetary settlement unrelated to improving accessibility or enforcing accessibility rights. The act describes the factors to be considered in making this determination.

A defendant who receives notice of an alleged website access violation and in good faith takes substantial steps to correct the violation within 90 days shall have a rebuttable presumption that any subsequent claim for a website access violation is abusive. There shall not be a presumption if the alleged violation is not corrected within 90 days after written notice or service of the petition.

Additionally, nothing in this act shall prevent a defendant from filing a motion to dismiss or from notifying the plaintiff, prior to the end of the 90-day period, that the alleged access violation has been corrected in good faith.

The Attorney General may intervene or bring an action on behalf of Missouri residents that are targets of abusive website access litigation. The Attorney General may also issue guidance as to when litigation practices are deemed abusive, but such guidance shall not preclude legitimate accessibility enforcement actions.

The court may award attorney's fees to the party defending against the abusive litigation. The court may also award punitive damages or sanctions not to exceed three times the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the court.

If the U.S. Department of Justice issues standards concerning website accessibility under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the provisions of this act shall expire.

This act is similar to HCS/HBs to HB 1694, 1674, 1780, 2056, 2312 & 1755 (2026), HB 1842 (2026), and HB 2150 (2026).

KATIE O'BRIEN

SCS/SB 1012 - This act creates new provisions relating to artificial intelligence.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS (Section 1.2045)

The act establishes the "AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act".

The act provides that an artificial intelligence (AI) system shall be declared a non-sentient entity. No government entity shall grant to an AI system the legal status of a personhood, nor be considered to possess consciousness, self-awareness, or similar traits of living beings. No AI system shall be recognized as a spouse or domestic partner, or designated, appointed, or serve as any officer, director, manager, or similar role within any company.

AI systems shall not be recognized as legal entities capable of owning title to property, as described in the act. All assets associated with an AI system shall be attributed to human individuals or organizations responsible for the AI's development, deployment, or operation.

Any harm caused by an AI system shall be the responsibility of the owner or user of the AI system. Developers or manufacturers may be held liable if a defect in design, construction, or instructions causes harm, consistent with product liability principles.

Owners of AI systems shall maintain reasonable and documented oversight and control measures over any AI system if its outputs or recommendations could reasonably be expected to impact human welfare, property, or public safety. Failure to provide such oversight may constitute negligence or another basis of liability.

Developers, manufacturers, and owners of AI systems shall prioritize safety mechanisms to prevent harm to individuals or property, as described in the act.

Labeling an AI system as "aligned", "ethically trained", or "value locked" shall not excuse or diminish the owner's or developer's liability for harms.

If an AI system causes significant harm, courts may pierce the corporate veil to hold parent companies accountable for the harm, as described in the act. Liability protections under corporate law shall not be used to evade responsibility for direct harm caused by AI systems. Owners or developers of AI systems involved in reportable incidents shall notify the Attorney General and comply with any subsequent investigations.

The provisions of the act shall apply to all AI systems developed, owned, deployed, or operated on or after August 28, 2026.

The provision is identical to HB 1769 (2026) and HB 1462 (2025), and substantially similar to SB 859 (2026).

ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED CONTENT (Sections 130.165 and 573.120)

ELECTIONS (Section 130.165)

This act creates new provisions relating to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in elections. Any political advertisement, electioneering communication, or other miscellaneous advertisement of a political nature that uses AI, in the manner that is described in the act, shall prominently include a disclaimer alerting the viewer that the media was created with the use of AI. The nature of the disclaimer is described in the act.

In addition to any civil penalties provided by law, a person identified in a disclaimer required by law as paying for, sponsoring, or approving any media covered by this act that is required to contain the disclaimer prescribed in this act and who fails to include the required disclaimer is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

These provisions are identical to SB 509 (2025).

DEEPFAKES (Section 573.120)

The act creates the offense of producing a deepfake if the person discloses, or threatens to disclose:

• A deepfake of an individual who is under eighteen years of age; or

• An intimate deepfake.

Any such person shall be guilty of a class E felony in the case of a deepfake or a class B felony in the case of an intimate deepfake.

SCOTT SVAGERA

Under the act, any person or entity creating AI-generated content shall label the content as "AI-generated". Labeling requirements are described in the act.

Any AI-generated content depicting a real individual shall include an additional disclaimer, as described in the act. Deployers, as defined in the act, shall verify the authenticity of the content before generating the content and shall obtain consent from the individual depicted in the content, except when the content is used for parody or satire.

Labels and watermarks on any AI-generated content shall be accessible to individuals with disabilities pursuant to current laws and guidelines, as described in the act. Certain exceptions apply as described in the act.

Developers and deployers shall maintain usage logs of all AI systems generating content distributed for public consumption. Requirements for the usage logs are described in the act. Any personal data of the usage logs shall be kept anonymous and protected under current laws, except when requested by law enforcement as described in the act.

The Attorney General shall enforce provisions of the act. Any person may report violations of the act to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General finds that a violation occurred, the Attorney General shall commence a civil action. The court may grant relief and civil penalties as described in the act.

The act shall not preclude an individual from bringing a private civil action for any violation of the act.

Individuals and entities that demonstrate good-faith compliance with the act may raise an affirmative defense to reduce civil penalties, provided they cure any violation within 30 days after receiving notice of the civil action.

Within 180 days after the effective date of the act, the Department of Commerce and Insurance may promulgate rules to enforce compliance with the act, as described in the act. The Department shall launch a public awareness campaign to educate Missouri residents about AI-generated content and the residents' rights under the act. The Department shall establish an AI Task Force, as described in the act.

Nothing in the act shall preempt any political subdivision from enacting stricter or more stringent ordinances, laws, or rules provided they do not conflict with provisions of the act.

The act has a severability clause.

JULIA SHEVELEVA