Missouri
Missouri City coffee shop owner says he was bullied by Starbucks
MISSOURI CITY, Texas – A viral video posted by a Missouri City coffee shop owner says he was bullied by a Starbucks shop, right next door, over a sign advertising his products.
Missouri City coffee shop owner claims he was bullied by Starbucks
A viral video posted by a Missouri City coffee shop owner says he was bullied by a Starbucks shop right next door over a sign advertising his products.
Bean Here Coffee opened its doors at Highway 6 and Oyster Creek about two years ago. The Starbucks is a recent addition, and the strip of land between them became a sort of battleground.
Mike Ouano opened his first of three local Bean Here Coffee shops eight years ago, after learning how to roast the beans and brew the different types of coffee people might want.
“I know there is a market for people who appreciate locally roasted, artisan coffee,” he says, “I figured, you know, why not take the leap?”
The Philippine-native opened his newest location because he says customers wanted a drive-thru. By all appearances, there’s steady traffic even with his new neighbor. Ouano didn’t think there was any trouble, until recently.
He posted a video on social media that, he says, shows a manager from Starbucks walking into his shop with a yard-sign that Bean Here had posted facing the coffee competitor. The shocked Ouano says the manager’s message was direct.
“He was instructed by his district manager to remove the sign, bring it back and talk to us about it,” he says, “That was the point I was like, ‘Well, that wasn’t on your side,’ and he said, ‘We’re just trying to protect our property. You’re free to put it back down, but we’ll always pick it back up.”
The sign now hangs on the coffee shop wall, advertising seasonal beverages. It was posted on a thin, grassy median between the two, along with signs that direct customers to tenants in Ouano’s building.
Since then, he’s got an inflatable gingerbread man facing his neighbor, instead, hopeful for a bit of detente and confidence that there’s room for both of them.
“I honestly feel that people who come here, there’s a reason they skip that line and come here,” he says, “I think I’ll be ok.”
Ouano says his landlord assures him the median between the two properties is safe to post on.
In a telephone conversation, a Starbucks spokesman did not offer any type of explanation or apology for what happened, but did tell Fox 26 they will not take any further action on any signs that are posted on that property.
A lawsuit filed Wednesday, May 13 seeks to knock a proposed constitutional amendment off Missouri’s 2026 ballot that would give lawmakers new power to expand sales taxes to eliminate the income tax, arguing legislators bundled too many subjects into one proposal and wrote misleading ballot language.
The lawsuit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court by attorney Chuck Hatfield on behalf of a Missouri resident, challenges a proposed ballot question that would ask voters to amend the Missouri Constitution to begin phasing out the state individual income tax.
The measure, approved by the legislature last month, is expected to appear on the November ballot unless Gov. Mike Kehoe moves it to another election. Kehoe has made eliminating the income tax one of his top priorities, arguing it would make Missouri more competitive with states that do not tax individual income.
But the lawsuit argues the proposal is constitutionally defective and should be blocked from any ballot. In the alternative, it asks the court to rewrite the summary statement voters would see.
The lawsuits central legal argument is that the proposal violates constitutional limits on ballot measures by including more than one subject and effectively amending multiple articles of the Missouri Constitution.
“This is precisely the logrolling harm the multi-article rule was designed to prevent,” the lawsuit argues, contending voters who support eliminating the income tax could be forced to also accept provisions they oppose, such as expanding the sales tax or changing how road funds and local taxes are handled.
The lawsuit also argues the proposal would improperly expand the constitutional role of the state auditor by requiring the office to calculate reduced tax rates triggered by the amendment. The petition contends that duty is not related to auditing the receipt or expenditure of public funds, which the Missouri Constitution says is the limit of the auditor’s authority.
Instead, the lawsuit argues, the amendment would give the auditor a new rate-setting or revenue-modeling role, including authority to calculate changes affecting tax rates set elsewhere in the constitution.
A spokesperson for Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who was among the named respondents in the lawsuit, did not respond to a request for comment.
If passed, the proposal would direct lawmakers to set a revenue baseline and triggers for phased-in reductions in the top tax rate. It also allows five years for the legislature to write a new sales tax law, which must be directly tied to cuts in the top income tax rate in a manner supporters hope will not increase or decrease revenue.
Currently Missouri has an income tax with a top rate of 4.7% for taxable incomes greater than about $9,200 a year. The sales tax is 3% for general revenue, but earmarked state taxes and local options stack on top of that, creating a rate that is 7% to 8% in most locations and can be as much as 12% in some special districts.
The sales tax applies to physical goods and excludes services. The Missouri Constitution prohibits lawmakers from applying the sales tax to real estate transfers and any goods or services not currently taxed, but those provisions would not apply to any sales tax plan passed as a result of the constitutional amendment.
Missouri gets about 65% of its state revenue from income tax, about 22% from sales tax and the rest from other sources including a corporate income tax. To replace the revenue from the income tax without expanding coverage of the sales tax would increase the tax rate by as much as 8.5%.
State law exempts residential utility costs, prescription drugs and groceries from all or a portion of the current sales tax. There are also dozens of other sales tax exemptions, mainly tied to business operations as an economic development tool.
The lawsuit also challenges the ballot summary approved by lawmakers.
The summary asks voters whether the Missouri Constitution should be amended to “phase-out the individual income tax based on revenue growth,” “reduce personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase,” “modify the sales and use tax to eliminate income tax and reduce local taxes” and “protect local funding for public schools and other purposes.”
The lawsuit argues that language is unfair and insufficient because it does not tell voters that the amendment would allow lawmakers to tax services now protected from sales taxes, would temporarily exempt certain tax increases from constitutional limits on new annual revenue and would permanently bar lawmakers from reimposing an individual income tax once it is eliminated.
The lawsuit takes particular aim at the word “modify,” arguing it fails to convey the breadth of the sales-tax authority voters would be granting lawmakers.
“A voter reading ‘modify the sales and use tax’ would not be apprised that the resolution authorizes the state to begin taxing services such as haircuts, legal fees, home repairs, medical services, accounting, and any other service currently exempt from sales tax,” the lawsuit states.
It also argues the phrase “protect local funding for public schools and other purposes” is argumentative because the word “protect” encourages support for the measure rather than neutrally describing what it does.
“If the people are allowed to have a fair vote, they’ll vote this amendment down,” Hatfield said in an interview May 13. “But the ballot summary the legislature wants to show them is just not fair or accurate.”
The governor called on lawmakers in January to place an income-tax phaseout on the ballot, saying voter approval would allow lawmakers to act next session.
Supporters of the amendment have argued that eliminating the income tax would help Missouri attract residents, jobs and investment. During debate over the proposal, Republicans framed it as a long-term economic growth strategy and a way to let Missourians keep more of what they earn.
Opponents have argued the plan would shift the tax burden toward sales taxes, raising costs for people who spend a larger share of their income on taxable goods and services. They have also warned that the ballot language does not make clear that voters would be authorizing a broader sales tax in order to replace revenue from the income tax.
The lawsuit asks the court to permanently block Hoskins from placing the measure on any ballot. If the court declines to do that, it asks for a new summary statement that “fairly and accurately conveys the central purpose and probable effects” of the amendment.
This story was first published at missouriindependent.com.
A bill requiring pornography websites to conduct age checks before granting access is headed to Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe.
Commercial websites and platforms must already verify that users are at least 18 if more than a third of their content is sexually explicit as part of a rule enforced by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway since December.
The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, would codify that rule in state law, requiring websites to use third-party age verification providers.
“One of the things that was really compelling to me is that a lot of people growing up in today’s age look at a phone or they look at a computer, and they think that is reality,” Gallick told The Independent. “It’s very demeaning to women and to children.”
Sites that don’t comply would be subject to civil penalties, including fines up to $10,000 per day in violation of the law and an additional $250,000 if at least one minor accessed sexually explicit content. Sites could be charged $10,000 per violation of a provision prohibiting age verification providers from retaining users’ identifiable information.
The House passed the bill 112-25 Wednesday, May 13, with 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans in opposition and 11 Democrats voting “present.” The Senate passed the bill 32-0 on Tuesday, May 12, sending it back to the House for approval of a minor amendment.
The bill got initial House approval last year but was dropped from the calendar before getting a formal vote due to a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court to a similar Texas law.
“The fear was, ‘Okay, what if they don’t uphold that? Then we would have to make some changes,’” Gallick said.
The court sided with Texas in July 2025, ruling that the state’s requirement that users prove their age by showing government-issued identification did not violate adults’ right to access constitutionally-protected content.
During House debate in March, Democratic lawmakers questioned the potential effectiveness of the bill and raised the possibility of unintended consequences.
Democratic state Rep. Eric Woods of Kansas City said young people are likely to find ways around age verification requirements.
“Kids are smart,” Woods said. “There are VPNs. There are browser settings that allow you to skirt around some of this stuff.”
House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, argued that age verification requirements could lead more prominent porn websites to block access in Missouri, driving traffic to less scrupulous sites with fewer content safeguards.
“The websites that are less inclined to follow the rules also tend to be the types of websites that are filled with child sexual assault material, that include nonconsensual sex acts,” Aune said.
The porn industry’s largest website, Pornhub, blocked access in Missouri after Hanaway announced her office’s rule, issuing a statement calling the new rule ineffective and raising data privacy concerns.
Gallick said that while she realizes some young people will still access sexually explicit material, putting age verification requirements in state law is an important step to protect children. She said pornography can be used by bad actors to “groom” children to engage in sexual activity.
“When there’s a leak in your house you turn the water off,” Gallick said. “When there’s pests that come into your house, an exterminator comes in and cuts off the source. This is the source. Children do not need to view pornography.”
This story was first published at missouriindependent.com.
The Missouri Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at May 13, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Powerball numbers from May 13 drawing
22-31-52-56-67, Powerball: 15, Power Play: 2
Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Pick 3 numbers from May 13 drawing
Midday: 2-6-1
Midday Wild: 7
Evening: 7-8-3
Evening Wild: 2
Check Pick 3 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Pick 4 numbers from May 13 drawing
Midday: 5-8-3-5
Midday Wild: 0
Evening: 8-7-7-9
Evening Wild: 1
Check Pick 4 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Cash Pop numbers from May 13 drawing
Early Bird: 11
Morning: 15
Matinee: 14
Prime Time: 12
Night Owl: 11
Check Cash Pop payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Show Me Cash numbers from May 13 drawing
04-08-18-19-27
Check Show Me Cash payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from May 13 drawing
08-13-39-63-66, Powerball: 02
Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize
All Missouri Lottery retailers can redeem prizes up to $600. For prizes over $600, winners have the option to submit their claim by mail or in person at one of Missouri Lottery’s regional offices, by appointment only.
To claim by mail, complete a Missouri Lottery winner claim form, sign your winning ticket, and include a copy of your government-issued photo ID along with a completed IRS Form W-9. Ensure your name, address, telephone number and signature are on the back of your ticket. Claims should be mailed to:
Ticket Redemption
Missouri Lottery
P.O. Box 7777
Jefferson City, MO 65102-7777
For in-person claims, visit the Missouri Lottery Headquarters in Jefferson City or one of the regional offices in Kansas City, Springfield or St. Louis. Be sure to call ahead to verify hours and check if an appointment is required.
For additional instructions or to download the claim form, visit the Missouri Lottery prize claim page.
When are the Missouri Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 9:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Mega Millions: 10 p.m. Tuesday and Friday.
- Pick 3: 12:45 p.m. (Midday) and 8:59 p.m. (Evening) daily.
- Pick 4: 12:45 p.m. (Midday) and 8:59 p.m. (Evening) daily.
- Cash4Life: 8 p.m. daily.
- Cash Pop: 8 a.m. (Early Bird), 11 a.m. (Late Morning), 3 p.m. (Matinee), 7 p.m. (Prime Time) and 11 p.m. (Night Owl) daily.
- Show Me Cash: 8:59 p.m. daily.
- Lotto: 8:59 p.m. Wednesday and Saturday.
- Powerball Double Play: 9:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Missouri editor. You can send feedback using this form.
-
Indiana5 minutes agoIndiana law enforcement takes up donations for Special Olympics
-
Iowa11 minutes agoIowa City Community Band readies for the summer | Music Column
-
Kansas17 minutes agoSW Kansas wildfires prompt evacuations, school closure, road closures
-
Kentucky23 minutes agoFormer Kentucky education commissioner to leave California superintendent job
-
Louisiana29 minutes agoOil donors cling to Cassidy in Louisiana primary
-
Maine35 minutes agoA Maine couple known for restoring cabins on TV is opening an inn of their own – The Boston Globe
-
Maryland41 minutes agoProminent immigrant rights group endorses Ferguson to remain as Senate president
-
Michigan47 minutes agoMichigan State roster reset: All eyes on Jeremy Fears Jr.’s return