The United States has no accessibility standard for private business websites and thousands of accessibility lawsuits a year. Europe has a standard, a directive and a compliance date, and almost no litigation against private companies at all.

That inversion is the single most useful thing to understand here, because advice written for one jurisdiction is close to useless in the other, and most of what circulates does not say which one it is describing.

This page sets out what each regime actually requires, who is exposed, and what the numbers behind the litigation figures are worth.

The US private sector: a duty with no specification

The justice department’s own guidance says both halves of this, on the same page.

The duty exists. The department states that Title III prohibits discrimination by businesses open to the public, and that it has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.

The specification does not. The same guidance states that the department does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards, and that its longstanding interpretation of the general nondiscrimination and effective communication provisions applies to web accessibility.

What businesses may therefore do, in its words. Businesses and state and local governments can currently choose how they will ensure that the programs, services and goods they provide online are accessible.

Where the guidelines fit. The department says existing technical standards provide helpful guidance concerning how to ensure accessibility of website features, naming the web content accessibility guidelines and the Section 508 standards.

What that leaves you with. An enforceable obligation whose content is defined by litigation rather than by regulation. There is no conformance level you can point to and claim compliance, which is precisely why the litigation volume is what it is.

The practical reading. Meeting WCAG 2.1 Level AA is not legally required for a private US site, and is also the most defensible position available. Those two statements are both true and people usually conflate them.

The litigation numbers, and who is counting

Two published counts, both credible, both from parties with a stake.

The first count. 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits filed in 2025, against 2,452 in 2024, described as 665 more, a 27% increase. Method: keyword searches over a court news dataset followed by manual review to exclude non-accessibility cases.

The second count. More than 5,000 reviewed, resolving to 3,195 federal and 1,919 state filings in New York and California, 5,114 in total, covering 1 January to 15 December 2025.

Why they differ on federal alone. 3,117 against 3,195, on nominally the same universe. Different inclusion rules and different source datasets. Neither is wrong; they are counting slightly different things.

A finding worth more than the totals. One count reports that 1,427 suits targeted companies that had already been sued, 45% of all federal cases in its dataset. Being sued once is not the end of the exposure.

The conflict, stated plainly. The first count comes from a law firm whose practice sells accessibility litigation defence and compliance counselling. The second comes from a vendor whose report closes by directing readers to its own accessibility testing platform.

How to use them anyway. As evidence that the volume is in the thousands and rising, which both agree on. Not as a precise figure, and not as neutral analysis.

Two published counts of United States website accessibility litigation for 2025Comparison of the two published counts of United States website accessibility litigation for the year two thousand and twenty-five, together with the methodology and commercial position of each publisher. The first count, from a law firm, reports three thousand one hundred and seventeen federal website accessibility lawsuits filed in two thousand and twenty-five against two thousand four hundred and fifty-two in two thousand and twenty-four, described as six hundred and sixty-five more filings representing a twenty-seven percent increase; its stated method is keyword searches across a court news service dataset followed by manual review of thousands of entries to exclude cases that are not website accessibility matters. The second count, from a software vendor, reports reviewing more than five thousand digital accessibility lawsuits, resolving to three thousand one hundred and ninety-five federal filings representing sixty-two percent and one thousand nine hundred and nineteen state filings in New York and California representing thirty-eight percent, for a total of five thousand one hundred and fourteen, covering the first of January to the fifteenth of December two thousand and twenty-five across the fourteen federal circuit courts and key individual state courts. The two counts differ by seventy-eight cases on federal filings alone, on a nominally identical universe, because their inclusion rules and source datasets differ; neither is incorrect and each is counting a slightly different population. A finding of greater practical significance than either total is that one count reports one thousand four hundred and twenty-seven suits targeting companies that had already been sued previously, amounting to forty-five percent of all federal cases in that dataset, which indicates that being sued once does not conclude the exposure. Both publishers have a direct commercial interest: the law firm sells accessibility litigation defence and compliance counselling, and the vendor’s report directs readers to its own accessibility testing platform.Two counts, one year, both interestedLaw firm count3,117federal filings, 2025Against 2,452 in 2024, “a 27% increase”Method: keyword search over a court newsdataset, then manual review.Sells litigation defence and counselling.Vendor count5,114federal and state, 20253,195 federal (62%) + 1,919 state (38%)1 Jan to 15 Dec 2025, NY and CA statecourts included.Sells an accessibility testing platform.They disagree by 78 on federal filings alone3,117 against 3,195, on a nominally identical universe. Different inclusion rules, different sources.The finding that matters more than either total1,427 suits targeted companies already sued. That is 45% of federal cases in that dataset.Use them for the order of magnitude, which both agree on. Not as a figure, and not as neutral analysis.
They disagree by 78 cases on federal filings alone. Both are worth citing; neither is neutral. Source : Published 2025 litigation reports (2026)

Where the US does have a standard

The contrast inside American law is as sharp as the contrast between continents.

The Title II final rule. Published at 89 FR 31320 on 24 April 2024, effective 24 June 2024. It adopts, in its own words, an internationally recognised accessibility standard for web access, requiring public entities to comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements.

Who it covers. State and local government entities. Not private businesses.

The original deadlines. Two years after publication for entities serving 50,000 or more people; three years for smaller entities and special district governments.

The deadlines as they now stand. An interim final rule at 91 FR 20902, effective 20 April 2026, extended them: entities of 50,000 or more move from April 2026 to 26 April 2027, and entities under 50,000 or special districts from April 2027 to 26 April 2028.

The exceptions the rule provides. Archived web content. Preexisting conventional electronic documents, unless needed for a service. Third-party content not under a contractual arrangement. Password-protected documents about a specific individual or account. Preexisting social media posts.

Section 508, for completeness. Applies to federal agencies developing, procuring, maintaining or using electronic and information technology, at WCAG 2.0 Level AA. It reaches private companies only as vendors selling technology to federal agencies.

Why this matters commercially. If you sell to US state or local government, or to federal agencies, accessibility has moved from reputational to contractual. If you sell to private US businesses, it has not.

The United States public sector accessibility rule and its revised compliance deadlinesSummary of the United States public sector web accessibility rule and its revised compliance deadlines. A final rule published at eighty-nine Federal Register thirty-one thousand three hundred and twenty on the twenty-fourth of April two thousand and twenty-four, effective the twenty-fourth of June two thousand and twenty-four, adopts an internationally recognised accessibility standard for web access and requires public entities to comply with the web content accessibility guidelines version two point one at level double A success criteria and conformance requirements. It covers state and local government entities under title two of the Americans with Disabilities Act and does not cover private businesses. The original compliance dates were two years after publication for entities serving populations of fifty thousand or more and three years after publication for smaller entities and special district governments. An interim final rule published at ninety-one Federal Register twenty thousand nine hundred and two, effective the twentieth of April two thousand and twenty-six, extended both dates: entities serving fifty thousand or more people move from April two thousand and twenty-six to the twenty-sixth of April two thousand and twenty-seven, and entities serving fewer than fifty thousand people or any special district government move from April two thousand and twenty-seven to the twenty-sixth of April two thousand and twenty-eight. The rule provides five exceptions: archived web content, preexisting conventional electronic documents unless needed for a service, third-party content not under a contractual arrangement, password-protected documents concerning a specific individual or account, and preexisting social media posts. Section 508 separately applies the web content accessibility guidelines version two point zero at level double A to federal agencies developing, procuring, maintaining or using electronic and information technology, reaching private companies only in their capacity as vendors selling technology to those agencies.Where US law does specify a standardTitle II final rule, 89 FR 31320, effective 24 June 2024Requires state and local government to comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA success criteria.Does not cover private businesses.Entity sizeOriginal deadlineAs extendedPopulation 50,000 or moreApril 202626 April 2027Under 50,000, or special districtsApril 202726 April 2028Extended by 91 FR 20902Effective 20 April 2026.Section 508, separatelyWCAG 2.0 AA, federal agencies and their vendors.If you sell to US public bodies, this reaches you through procurement, and the dates are arriving now.
A real standard with real dates, extended once. It reaches private companies only through procurement. Source : 89 FR 31320 and 91 FR 20902 (2026)

Europe: a standard, a date, and an exemption most B2B firms qualify for

The European position is more legible and, for most small companies, considerably narrower than it is presented.

The web accessibility directive. Requires member states to ensure that websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies meet its requirements. It does not apply to private companies at all.

Its technical route. Conformance is presumed by reference to the European standard EN 301 549, which is the instrument that incorporates the accessibility success criteria. The directive text names the standard, not the guidelines directly.

The European Accessibility Act. Applies to listed products placed on the market, and listed services provided to consumers, after 28 June 2025.

What it covers. Electronic communications services, audiovisual media access services, elements of air, bus, rail and waterborne passenger transport services, consumer banking services, e-books, and e-commerce services.

The exemption that decides most cases. Microenterprises providing services are exempt from complying with the accessibility requirements and from any obligations relating to compliance with them.

The definition, verbatim. A microenterprise is an enterprise which employs fewer than 10 persons and which has an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 2 million or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 2 million.

The asymmetry to state precisely. That full exemption applies to microenterprises providing services. Microenterprises dealing with products are not exempt from the requirements themselves; they get a lighter procedure, excused from documenting their conformity assessment and from notifying the market surveillance authority.

On penalties. The directive sets no euro figure. It requires member states to lay down rules on penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account the extent of non-compliance and the number of persons affected. The amounts live in national law.

Comparison of web accessibility obligations across four regulatory regimesTable comparing web accessibility obligations across four regulatory regimes to show that the answer to whether a website must be accessible depends entirely on jurisdiction and entity type. For a private business in the United States, a duty exists because the justice department states that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to goods and services offered on the web, but no technical standard exists because the department states it does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards, so businesses can currently choose how they ensure accessibility, and the published guidelines are described only as helpful guidance; enforcement occurs through private litigation, with thousands of federal and state filings recorded annually. For state and local government in the United States, a genuine standard exists: a final rule published at eighty-nine Federal Register thirty-one thousand three hundred and twenty requires compliance with the web content accessibility guidelines version two point one at level double A, with compliance dates extended by a later interim final rule to the twenty-sixth of April two thousand and twenty-seven for entities serving fifty thousand or more people and the twenty-sixth of April two thousand and twenty-eight for smaller entities and special districts. For federal agencies and their technology vendors, Section 508 applies the web content accessibility guidelines version two point zero at level double A. In the European Union, the web accessibility directive applies to public sector bodies only, with conformance presumed by reference to the European standard EN three zero one five four nine. The European Accessibility Act applies from the twenty-eighth of June two thousand and twenty-five to listed services including electronic commerce and consumer banking, but exempts microenterprises providing services entirely, defining a microenterprise as employing fewer than ten persons with annual turnover or balance sheet total not exceeding two million euros; penalties are delegated to member states, which must make them effective, proportionate and dissuasive.Four regimes, four different answersWho you areStandard?EnforcementUS private businessNonePrivate litigation, thousands a yearDuty exists. “The Department does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards.”US state and local governmentWCAG 2.1 AARegulatory, dated deadlines89 FR 31320. Deadlines extended to 26 Apr 2027 and 26 Apr 2028.US federal agency or its ICT vendorWCAG 2.0 AAProcurementEU public sector bodyEN 301 549Member state regimeEU microenterprise providing servicesExemptNone, under the Accessibility ActFewer than 10 persons, and turnover or balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 2 million.The inversion worth rememberingA duty with no standard produces litigation. A standard with a compliance date produces compliance.
A US private site has a duty and no standard. A European microenterprise providing services has a standard and an exemption. Source : DOJ guidance, 89 FR 31320, Directives 2016/2102 and 2019/882 (2026)

France, where the fine cannot reach the failure

Worth one section, because it is the clearest illustration of why a legal regime with a standard can still produce no enforcement.

The threshold. Private companies are in scope from a revenue threshold of EUR 250 million, calculated as the average annual French revenue over the three most recent closed financial years.

The ceilings. Up to EUR 50,000 for breaching the accessibility obligation itself, and up to EUR 25,000 for breaching the declaratory obligations.

The clause that changes the picture. Reading the sanctions article carefully, the 50,000 amount attaches to public bodies for the accessibility failure and the declaratory failures. Private companies above the revenue threshold appear only in the paragraph covering the declaratory obligations, capped at 25,000.

Which means, on this mechanism. A large private company cannot be fined for having an inaccessible site. It can be fined for failing to publish an accessibility statement and a multi-year plan.

The procedure before any fine. Officials establish a record, the regulator issues a public formal notice with a deadline, and only continued non-compliance can lead to a monetary penalty.

And the enforcement record. The only public formal notice of this kind I could identify was issued in June 2026 against a government tax service, described as the first public action of its type against a French state service. I found no sanction, formal notice or fine against any French private company for web inaccessibility.

How to state that honestly. As an absence of found evidence rather than proof of non-existence. But it is a striking contrast with thousands of US filings a year.

Why the American and French accessibility regimes produce different enforcement outcomesComparison explaining why the American and French web accessibility regimes produce markedly different enforcement outcomes despite both imposing obligations. In the United States, the obligation derives from general nondiscrimination provisions with no implementing technical regulation for private business, and enforcement occurs through private lawsuits brought by individuals, which means any plaintiff can initiate an action and the content of the obligation is determined case by case through litigation rather than by regulation; the result is thousands of federal and state filings annually, with one count recording that forty-five percent of federal cases targeted companies already sued previously. In France, private companies enter scope only above an annual revenue threshold of two hundred and fifty million euros calculated as the average French revenue across the three most recent closed financial years, and the sanctions provision distinguishes between categories: the fifty thousand euro ceiling for the accessibility obligation itself attaches to public bodies, while private companies above the revenue threshold appear only in the paragraph covering declaratory obligations, capped at twenty-five thousand euros, meaning that under this mechanism a large private company can be fined for failing to publish an accessibility statement and multi-year plan but not for operating an inaccessible website. The procedure additionally requires officials to establish a formal record, followed by a public formal notice from the regulator specifying a deadline, with a monetary penalty available only upon continued non-compliance after that notice. The only public formal notice of this type identified was issued in June two thousand and twenty-six against a government tax service and described as the first public action of its kind against a French state service, with no sanction, formal notice or fine identified against any French private company for web inaccessibility, which should be stated as an absence of found evidence rather than as proof that none exists.Same goal, opposite enforcement machineryUnited StatesDuty from general nondiscrimination law.No technical regulation for private business.Enforced by private lawsuits.Any plaintiff can start one. The content of theobligation gets decided case by case.Result: thousands of filings a year.FrancePrivate companies in scope above EUR 250M.Ceilings of EUR 50,000 and EUR 25,000.Enforced administratively.Record, then a public formal notice with adeadline, then possibly a penalty.Result: no private-company case found.And the French clause that decides itThe EUR 50,000 ceiling attaches to public bodies. Private companies appear only under thedeclaratory obligations, capped at EUR 25,000.So a large French private company can be fined for not publishing a statementand not, under this mechanism, for having an inaccessible site.
A duty enforced privately, against a standard enforced administratively with a formal notice step first. Source : DOJ guidance and French sanctions provisions (2026)

What to actually do

Six steps, ordered so that the first three are worth doing whatever your jurisdiction.

Fix the things that are both cheap and load-bearing. Text contrast, keyboard navigation, form labels, alt text, and a visible focus indicator. These are a small fraction of the guidelines and a large fraction of the actual barriers.

Test with a keyboard, then with a screen reader. Twenty minutes each. This finds more real problems than any automated scan, which typically detects a minority of issues.

Publish an accessibility statement. In France it is the only thing a private company can currently be fined for omitting. Everywhere else it is evidence of good faith, which matters when the obligation is defined by litigation.

If you sell to US public bodies, treat WCAG 2.1 AA as contractual. Their deadlines are April 2027 and April 2028, which means their procurement requirements are arriving now.

If you are a European microenterprise providing services, check the exemption before spending anything. Fewer than 10 people and under EUR 2 million. If that is you, the Accessibility Act does not require this of you.

And do not buy an overlay widget. They are marketed as compliance and are frequently named in US litigation rather than protecting against it. Fix the site.

Six accessibility actions ordered by jurisdictional applicabilityDiagram presenting six accessibility actions ordered so that the first three apply regardless of jurisdiction. The first action is to fix the measures that are both inexpensive and load-bearing, namely text contrast, keyboard navigation, form labels, alternative text for images and a visible focus indicator, which together constitute a small fraction of the published guidelines and a large fraction of the actual barriers encountered by users. The second action is to test using a keyboard and then using a screen reader, requiring approximately twenty minutes each, which identifies more genuine problems than any automated scan since automated tools typically detect only a minority of issues. The third action is to publish an accessibility statement, which in France is the only obligation for which a private company can currently be fined under the relevant mechanism, and which elsewhere constitutes evidence of good faith, a consideration that matters where the obligation is defined through litigation rather than regulation. The fourth action applies to businesses selling to United States public bodies, which should treat the web content accessibility guidelines version two point one level double A as a contractual requirement given that those bodies face deadlines in April two thousand and twenty-seven and April two thousand and twenty-eight and their procurement requirements are consequently arriving now. The fifth action applies to European microenterprises providing services, which should verify the exemption before spending anything, since an enterprise employing fewer than ten persons with turnover or balance sheet total not exceeding two million euros is exempt from the accessibility requirements of the European Accessibility Act entirely. The sixth action is to avoid purchasing accessibility overlay widgets, which are marketed as compliance solutions but are frequently named in United States litigation rather than providing protection against it, the appropriate response being to correct the underlying website.Six actions, jurisdiction-proof firstWorth doing wherever you are1. The load-bearing fiveContrast, keyboard, labels,alt text, focus indicator.2. Twenty minutes eachKeyboard, then a screenreader. Beats any scanner.3. Publish a statementThe only French privateobligation with a fine.Only if this describes you4. Selling to US public bodiesTreat WCAG 2.1 AA as contractual now.5. EU microenterprise, servicesCheck the exemption before spending.Do not6. Buy an overlay widgetMarketed as compliance, frequently named in US litigation rather than protecting against it. Fix the site.
Contrast, keyboard, labels. A small share of the guidelines and a large share of the actual barriers. Source : Method, applied to the three regulatory regimes (2026)

Where to go next

You are rebuilding the site. Signs it is time for a B2B website redesign.

You are choosing a platform. The best website platform for B2B.

You want the technical requirements for search. Technical SEO: three requirements.

You are moving the site. Website migration without losing rankings.

You are working on the button. Call to action testing, which covers the contrast and target size criteria in detail.

You want the page anatomy. Anatomy of a high-converting B2B landing page.

In short

  • The US has a duty and no standard for private sites. The justice department states it has no regulation setting out detailed standards, and that businesses can currently choose how they comply.
  • That is exactly why litigation is the enforcement mechanism, at 3,117 federal filings on one count and 5,114 federal and state on another for 2025.
  • 45% of federal cases in one dataset targeted companies already sued. Settling once does not end it.
  • Both counts come from firms selling defence or remediation. Cite them for magnitude, not as neutral analysis.
  • A real US standard exists for public bodies: WCAG 2.1 AA under a 2024 rule, with deadlines now extended to April 2027 and April 2028.
  • The EU web accessibility directive covers public bodies only.
  • The European Accessibility Act covers e-commerce and other listed services from June 2025, and exempts microenterprises providing services entirely.
  • A microenterprise is under 10 people and under EUR 2 million in turnover or balance sheet total.

Fix contrast, keyboard access and labels, publish a statement, and skip the overlay. Book a diagnostic, or see how we approach B2B websites.