If the defendant in a website access violation case attempts to correct the alleged violation within 30 days of being provided notice, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the subsequent initiation or continuance of litigation constitutes abusive litigation. Such presumption shall not exist if the alleged violation is not corrected within 90 days under circumstances described in the act. If the Attorney General determines that the website access litigation is not abusive, then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the litigation is not abusive.

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 identical to HB 1674 (2026), HB 1755 (2026), HB 1780 (2026), HB 1842 (2026), HB 2150 (2026), and HB 2312 (2026), is substantially similar to SB 1272 (2026) and HB 2056 (2026), and is similar to SB 1154 (2026) and HB 1694 (2026).

KATIE O'BRIEN

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

A defendant who receives notice of an alleged website accessibility violation and in good faith takes substantial steps to correct the violation within 90 days shall have a rebuttable presumption that any subsequent litigation is not abusive. The presumption may be overcome by a showing that the defendant failed to complete reasonable corrective measures within 90 days or acted in bad 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 substantially similar to HB 1694 (2026) and is similar to SB 907 (2026), SB 1272 (2026), HB 1674 (2026), HB 1755 (2026), HB 1780 (2026), HB 1842 (2026), HB 2056 (2026), HB 2150 (2026), and HB 2312 (2026).

KATIE O'BRIEN

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

The act provides that it shall be unlawful to design, develop, or make available an artificial intelligence chatbot knowing or with reckless disregard that the chatbot poses certain risks of soliciting minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct or encouraging minors to create or transmit any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct. Any person who violates this provision shall be fined not more than $100,000 per offense.

It shall be unlawful to design, develop, or make available an artificial intelligence chatbot knowing or with reckless disregard that the chatbot encourages, promotes, or coerces suicide, self-injury, or imminent physical or sexual violence. Any person who violates this provision shall be fined not more than $100,000 per offense.

A covered entity, as defined in the act, shall require each individual accessing a chatbot to make a user account in order to use the chatbot.

For any chatbot that exists as of August 28, 2026, a covered entity shall freeze the account, require the user to provide age data to restore the account, and using the age data classify each user as a minor or an adult.

At the time an individual creates a new user account to interact with a chatbot, a covered entity shall request age data from the individual, verify the individual's age using a reasonable age verification process, and classify each user as a minor or an adult using the age data.

A covered entity shall periodically review previously verified user accounts using a reasonable age verification process.

A covered entity may contract with a third party to employ reasonable age verification measures as part of the age verification process, as described in the act.

A covered entity shall establish reasonable measures to protect personal data as described in the act.

Each artificial intelligence chatbot shall at the start of each conversation with a user at 30-minute intervals disclose to the user that the chatbot is artificial intelligence and not a human being and be programmed to ensure that the chatbot does not claim to be a human being.

The chatbot shall not represent that the chatbot is a licensed professional, as described in the act, or that the chatbot provides certain professional services, as described in the act.

If the age verification process determines that an individual is a minor, a covered entity shall prohibit the minor from accessing any chatbot made available by the covered entity.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action for violations of the act. Relief is described in the act.

The act is identical to HB 2032 (2026).

JULIA SHEVELEVA