Accessibility laws
The laws that make WCAG binding.
WCAG is a standard, not a statute, so nobody is sued for failing it on its own. The consequences come from the 38 laws below. Some name WCAG outright, some point at a European standard that contains it, and a few name no technical standard at all and leave a court to decide what an accessible website means. Each guide says who the law covers, which version of WCAG it lands on, and what failing it has cost people so far. Facts current as of August 2026.
EN 301 549, the standard several of these laws actually name
Several of the laws below point at this European standard rather than at WCAG directly. Its chapter 9 is WCAG 2.1 AA, so a website that meets WCAG has met that chapter. The other eight cover hardware, biometrics, real-time text, documentation and emergency services, and WCAG says nothing about any of them. So a supplier answering a European tender with a WCAG conformance claim has answered one chapter out of nine.
United States
| Law | Region | WCAG cited | Exposure | Status / deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADA | United States | WCAG 2.1 AA (Title II rule, de facto standard in Title III cases) | Federal lawsuits, DOJ enforcement, settlement costs | Title II: Apr 26, 2027 / Apr 26, 2028 |
| Section 508 | United States (federal) | WCAG 2.0 AA (incorporated by the 2017 refresh) | Lost federal contracts, complaints, civil actions | Compliance required since Jan 18, 2018 |
| ACAA | United States (aviation) | WCAG 2.0 AA, named in 14 CFR 382.43 | DOT complaints, investigation, orders to fix | Dec 12, 2015 and Dec 12, 2016, both passed |
| Section 255 | United States (telecoms) | WCAG 2.0 A and AA, through the Revised 255 Guidelines | FCC complaints only, with no private lawsuit | No date. Your next product release |
| Unruh Act | California, US | WCAG 2.1 AA (what courts and settlements expect) | $4,000 minimum statutory damages per violation + fees | In force (piggybacks the ADA) |
| HHS Section 504 | United States (healthcare) | WCAG 2.1 AA (2024 final rule) | OCR enforcement, loss of federal funding, civil actions | May 11, 2027 / May 10, 2028 |
| New York HRL | New York, US | WCAG 2.1 AA (what complaints and settlements cite) | Damages + civil penalties to $125k ($250k willful, NYC) | In force (its own cause of action) |
| Colorado HB21-1110 | Colorado, US | WCAG 2.1 AA (written into state standards) | $3,500 statutory damages per violation, per person | Enforced since Jul 1, 2025 |
International
| Law | Region | WCAG cited | Exposure | Status / deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EAA | European Union | Annex I, EN 301 549 (includes WCAG 2.1 AA) | National fines, orders to fix, market restrictions | Applies since Jun 28, 2025 |
| Web Accessibility Directive | European Union | EN 301 549 V3.2.1, which carries WCAG 2.1 AA | National enforcement body, annual monitoring, published results | Fully in force since Jun 23, 2021 |
| Manitoba AMA | Manitoba, Canada | WCAG 2.1 AA (Accessible Information and Communication Standard) | Administrative penalties under the Act, enforced by the Manitoba Accessibility Office | Private sector since May 1, 2025 |
| Argentina Ley 26.653 | Argentina | WCAG 2.0, referenced by the law | Administrative enforcement against covered public bodies | In force since 2010 |
| China PPD Law | China | No WCAG version named in the law itself | Administrative enforcement, with a voluntary web standard alongside | Amended 2008 |
| Colombia guidelines | Colombia | WCAG 2.1 | Public sector obligation, enforced administratively | In force since 2020 |
| Hong Kong guidelines | Hong Kong | WCAG 2.0 | Government policy, with the Disability Discrimination Ordinance underneath | In force since 1999 |
| Taiwan 110.07 | Taiwan | WCAG 2.1 derivative | Government policy, applied through procurement and audit | In force since 2021 |
| Saudi SWA | Saudi Arabia | WCAG 2.1 AA | Public and private sector obligation | Disability Rights Law since 2000, SWA alongside it |
| Qatar Law No. 2 | Qatar | WCAG 2.1 AA | Mandatory for government, voluntary for private business | In force since 2004 |
| UAE requirements | United Arab Emirates | WCAG 2.1 AA | Government mandatory. The private-sector position is disputed between sources | Dubai policy from 2020 |
| AODA | Ontario, Canada | WCAG 2.0 AA (excl. 1.2.4 & 1.2.5) | Fines up to CA$100,000 per day (corporations) | In force since Jan 1, 2021 (web) |
| UK Equality Act | United Kingdom | WCAG A and AA, named in PSBAR regulation 9 as amended from time to time | Discrimination claims, monitored fixes for public bodies | In force (public sector phase-in 2019 to 2021) |
| Accessible Canada Act | Canada (federal) | CAN/ASC-EN 301 549 → WCAG 2.1 AA | Penalties up to CA$250,000 per violation | Dec 5, 2027 / Dec 5, 2028 |
| Norway (Universal Design) | Norway | WCAG 2.0 AA private / 2.1 AA public | Coercive daily fines from the uutilsynet regulator | In force since 2014 (all sites since 2021) |
| Israel IS 5568 | Israel | WCAG 2.0 AA (via IS 5568) | Statutory damages to ₪50,000, no proof of harm needed | In force since Oct 2017 |
| Australia DDA | Australia | WCAG 2.2 AA (AHRC 2025 guidance) | AHRC complaints → Federal Court, damages and orders | In force since 1992 |
| Germany BFSG | Germany | EN 301 549 → WCAG 2.1 AA | Fines up to €100,000, service prohibition | In force since Jun 28, 2025 |
| France RGAA | France | RGAA (WCAG-based) / EN 301 549 | €50,000 public non-conformity, daily penalties on the private side | RGAA in force, EAA since Jun 2025 |
| Italy Stanca Act | Italy | WCAG 2.1 AA (AgID guidelines) | AgID sanctions up to 5% of turnover (private) | In force, private ≥€500M since 2022 |
| Japan JIS X 8341-3 | Japan | JIS X 8341-3:2016 = WCAG 2.0 AA | Mandatory accommodation duty, ministry guidance | Private duty since Apr 1, 2024 |
| Spain RD 1112/2018 | Spain | UNE-EN 301549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA | Public-sector monitoring, complaints, and EAA duties on business | Public sector in force, EAA applies since Jun 28, 2025 |
| Netherlands | Netherlands | EN 301 549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA | Mandatory published status, supervision, and EAA duties | Public sector in force, EAA applies since Jun 28, 2025 |
| Ireland | Ireland | EN 301 549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA | Public sector duties, Ombudsman complaints, EAA penalties | Public sector in force, EAA applies since Jun 28, 2025 |
| Brazil LBI | Brazil | eMAG, aligned with WCAG, plus ABNT NBR 17225 for web content | Public civil actions, consumer protection, fines | In force since 2016 |
| India RPwD | India | GIGW 3.0, which references WCAG 2.1 | Statutory duty, Chief Commissioner complaints, court orders | In force, government sites held to GIGW |
| New Zealand | New Zealand | WCAG 2.2 Level AA | Mandatory for government agencies, Human Rights Act for others | In force for public service agencies |
| South Korea | South Korea | KWCAG 2.2, a national standard aligned with WCAG | Discrimination claims, damages, and mandatory certification pressure | In force, phased since 2009 |
| Switzerland BehiG | Switzerland | eCH-0059, which references WCAG 2.1 AA | Federal duty, cantonal variation, and EAA reach for exporters | In force, federal sites held to eCH-0059 |
| Denmark | Denmark | EN 301 549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA | Public sector monitoring, Digitaliseringsstyrelsen oversight, EAA duties | Public sector in force, EAA applies since Jun 28, 2025 |
The law guides
- United StatesADAAlmost every web accessibility lawsuit filed in the United States runs on the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that never mentions websites once. Which half of it reaches you depends on who you are. If you run a business open to the public, no federal regulation names a technical standard for your site, so courts and plaintiffs measure you against WCAG instead. If you are a state or local government, the Department of Justice has already named your standard and set your date. WCAG 2.1 Level AA, by April 26, 2027 if your population is 50,000 or more, and by April 26, 2028 if it is smaller. Population there means the Census population of the entity you are part of, which is not the number of people you serve.Read the full guide →
- United States (federal)Section 508Section 508 binds federal departments and agencies, plus the United States Postal Service, and nobody else. Taking federal money does not pull you in. What pulls you in is selling to the government, because an agency has to buy accessible technology, and a product that cannot document how it measures up does not get considered. The standard has been WCAG 2.0 Level AA since January 2018, and unlike nearly everything else on this site, it has not moved since.Read the full guide →
- United States (aviation)ACAAFly people to, from, or inside the United States and your website has been under a named WCAG rule since 2015. Not the ADA. A separate statute, a separate regulator, and a regulation that says the version out loud. The Department of Transportation wrote it, it lives at 14 CFR 382.43, and it requires WCAG 2.0 Level AA. Core booking pages had to conform by December 12, 2015, and the rest of the primary site by December 12, 2016. It reaches you if you operate at least one aircraft with a designed seating capacity of more than 60 passengers, and a foreign carrier is caught on the same terms as a US one.Read the full guide →
- United States (telecoms)Section 255Make a phone, a headset, a router, a softphone, a voicemail system, or an interactive menu, and there is a 1996 accessibility law with your name on it. Section 255 of the Communications Act reaches manufacturers and service providers, not government agencies, which is what separates it from Section 508. The duty is to design, develop and fabricate the equipment to be accessible and usable by people with disabilities, if readily achievable. The technical detail lives in the Revised 255 Guidelines, which pull in WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA for content and software. And it has no deadline, because the trigger is your next release rather than a date on a calendar.Read the full guide →
- California, USUnruh ActThe Unruh Civil Rights Act is why a California web accessibility claim costs more than a federal one. One sentence in the statute says a violation of somebody's rights under the ADA is also a violation of Unruh, with nothing extra to prove. And Unruh, unlike the ADA, pays. At least $4,000 for each violation, plus the plaintiff's attorney's fees, and nobody has to show they were actually harmed to collect it. That is the whole engine, and it runs in state court.Read the full guide →
- United States (healthcare)HHS Section 504If you bill Medicare or Medicaid, this rule already covers you, whether or not anyone has told you so. Medicare Part B reimbursement on its own is enough, which catches a lot of small practices that have never once thought of themselves as federally funded. What it asks for is WCAG 2.1 Level AA on your web content and your mobile apps. The date is May 11, 2027 if you have 15 or more employees, and May 10, 2028 if you have fewer. Check-in kiosks are covered too, under a plain duty not to shut anyone out rather than a technical standard.Read the full guide →
- New York, USNew York HRLNew York produced 1,021 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, more than any other state, and the reason is money. The ADA can order you to fix the site and make you pay the other side's lawyer. New York's state and city human rights laws add damages on top of that. The city law is also written to be read more generously toward the person suing than either the federal or the state version. That is why a plaintiff's firm with a choice of venue picks New York. What actually happens in most of those cases is an early settlement for modest money and a promise to fix the site, not the six-figure penalties the statutes allow.Read the full guide →
- Colorado, USColorado HB21-1110Colorado was the first US state to back a digital accessibility standard with statutory damages a private person can collect, which is why other states keep pointing at it. The figure everybody quotes is $3,500. The one nobody quotes is the sentence sitting next to it, because the statute counts a single digital product as a single violation. One website is one violation, not one per barrier. And compliance itself is more forgiving than either number suggests. A public entity that publishes a technology accessibility statement and can show real progress on a plan counts as compliant, even where its technology does not yet fully conform.Read the full guide →
- European UnionEAAThe European Accessibility Act has applied since June 28, 2025, and it reaches far fewer websites than the name suggests. It does not regulate every website in the European Union. It regulates a closed list of products and consumer services, and your website only comes into it when the site is part of selling or delivering something on that list. Small service providers are exempt outright. So the first two questions are whether what you sell is on the list, and whether you are big enough to be caught.Read the full guide →
- European UnionWeb Accessibility DirectiveWork for a European public body and this is the law you actually answer to, not the European Accessibility Act. Directive (EU) 2016/2102 covers the websites and mobile apps of public sector bodies, which means the State, regional and local authorities, and bodies governed by public law. It asks for content that is perceivable, operable, understandable and robust, and the practical target is EN 301 549 V3.2.1, which carries WCAG 2.1 Level AA. It also requires a published accessibility statement written to a template with seven mandatory parts. Every deadline in it has already passed, and somebody checks your site on a schedule without waiting for a complaint.Read the full guide →
- Manitoba, CanadaManitoba AMAManitoba is the second Canadian province with a binding web accessibility duty, and if you learned Canadian accessibility law from AODA coverage you are probably under-estimating it. Ontario names WCAG 2.0 AA and starts at 50 employees. Manitoba names WCAG 2.1 AA and starts at one. The private sector date was May 1, 2025, so for most Manitoba businesses this is not a deadline to plan for. It is one that has already gone.Read the full guide →
- ArgentinaArgentina Ley 26.653Argentina put web accessibility into statute in 2010, which makes it one of the earlier laws of its kind anywhere. Ley 26.653 reaches the national state and the bodies around it, and it references WCAG 2.0. What it does not do is set a private business a technical standard, and any page telling you otherwise is guessing.Read the full guide →
- ChinaChina PPD LawChina's accessibility duty comes from the Law on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, amended in 2008, and it does not name a WCAG version. A voluntary web accessibility standard sits alongside it. So the honest position for a website in China is that the obligation is real and the technical bar is not written into the statute, which is an uncomfortable combination to plan against.Read the full guide →
- ColombiaColombia guidelinesColombia's web accessibility guidelines date from 2020 and reference WCAG 2.1, which makes them one of the more current instruments in Latin America. They reach the public sector. If you run a business in Colombia, the guidelines are the bar people will measure you against even where they do not bind you.Read the full guide →
- Hong KongHong Kong guidelinesHong Kong has had web accessibility guidelines for government websites since 1999, which makes them among the oldest still in force anywhere. They reference WCAG 2.0. Underneath sits the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, and that is the instrument a private business should actually be reading.Read the full guide →
- TaiwanTaiwan 110.07Taiwan's Web Accessibility Guidelines, version 110.07, date from 2021 and derive from WCAG 2.1. That is a recent instrument pointing at a recent standard, which puts Taiwan ahead of several larger markets on paper.Read the full guide →
- Saudi ArabiaSaudi SWASaudi Arabia names WCAG 2.1 Level AA through its Web Accessibility Standards, and the obligation reaches both the public and the private sector. That combination is less common than it sounds. Plenty of countries name a standard for government and leave business alone. Saudi Arabia does not.Read the full guide →
- QatarQatar Law No. 2Qatar's accessibility duty comes from Law No. 2 of 2004, and the technical bar attached to it is WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The split that matters is who it binds: government is mandatory, private business is voluntary. Knowing which side of that line you are on changes what this costs you.Read the full guide →
- United Arab EmiratesUAE requirementsThe UAE names WCAG 2.1 Level AA, and Dubai has its own policy on top of the federal position. Beyond that, our sources disagree with each other, and this page is going to say so rather than pick a side. Two publications from the same publisher give different federal law citations and different answers on whether private business is bound.Read the full guide →
- Ontario, CanadaAODAOntario put WCAG 2.0 Level AA into a regulation, named the two success criteria most organizations get to skip, and set a deadline that passed on January 1, 2021. No court had to decide any of it. What catches owners out is that this law runs on two different employee counts. At 50 or more employees in Ontario your public website owes the standard, and at 20 or more you owe a compliance report even if the web rule never reaches you. That report is due December 31, 2026.Read the full guide →
- United KingdomUK Equality ActUK accessibility law runs in two layers, and the softer one covers almost everybody. Every service provider in Great Britain, public or private, owes disabled customers reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, and that duty is anticipatory. You are meant to remove the barrier before a disabled person meets it, not after they complain. Northern Ireland runs the same idea under its own older statute. That layer names no standard at all, and as far as any source we could find says, no UK court has ever ruled on website accessibility. Public bodies get the second layer, PSBAR, and since October 2022 that one names WCAG in the regulations themselves.Read the full guide →
- Canada (federal)Accessible Canada ActCanada's federal accessibility law changed shape on December 5, 2025. Until that day the Accessible Canada Act mostly asked for plans, feedback processes, and progress reports. It did already say those documents had to meet WCAG Level AA when you published them electronically. What it never did was set a standard for the rest of your website. Then the Governor in Council registered SOR/2025-255, which names a technical standard and attaches hard dates to it. Federal public sector web pages have to conform by December 5, 2027. Private federally regulated businesses averaging 100 or more employees have until December 5, 2028.Read the full guide →
- NorwayNorway (Universal Design)Norway does something no other country on this site does. Every time its regulator audits a website, it publishes the report, naming the organisation, the pages tested, the rules broken, and each individual finding. It runs a second public register where public bodies file their accessibility statements. So Norwegian enforcement is a record you can read rather than a rumour you hear, and the fines behind it accrue for every day a site stays broken.Read the full guide →
- IsraelIsrael IS 5568Israel put private websites under a real legal duty with money attached, and a claimant never has to prove anyone was hurt to collect on it. That reputation is earned. What almost nobody tells you is the rest of the regulation, which is full of written exceptions. A turnover figure decides whether your video needs captions at all. A certified auditor can sign off that a particular fix is technologically impossible. And a business trading through a social platform owes only whatever accessibility that platform already offers.Read the full guide →
- AustraliaAustralia DDAAustralia has never made a binding web accessibility standard, and it is not for want of a way to do it. Section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act lets the Minister create binding disability standards, and Australia has used that power for premises, for transport, and for education. Thirty-four years in, it has never used it for the web. So what you are actually measured against is a general ban on discrimination, a regulator's non-binding guidance that named WCAG 2.2 Level AA in April 2025, and a complaints process that ends at a court which can award damages.Read the full guide →
- GermanyGermany BFSGThe biggest accessibility risk for a business in Germany right now is not the regulator. It is a competitor. German unfair competition law lets a rival send you an Abmahnung, which is a cease-and-desist demand with its legal costs attached. Specialist reports say those letters rose sharply through late 2025 and kept climbing into 2026. Meanwhile the state market surveillance authority, the MLBF, has been running since September 2025 and moved into active control in January 2026, with fines to €100,000 on the books. As of July 2026, no MLBF fine had been publicly documented.Read the full guide →
- FranceFrance RGAAIn June 2026 a French court told Carrefour that an e-commerce site cannot be only slightly accessible. The Tribunal judiciaire de Caen ordered the retailer to make carrefour.fr and its mobile app fully accessible within six months, with a daily penalty for every day of delay and damages on top. The associations who brought it read that as accessibility being an obligation of result, where trying hard is not the standard. Later the same month the regulator put the French state's own tax ministry on formal notice. France runs two accessibility regimes at once, and both of them have just started moving.Read the full guide →
- ItalyItaly Stanca ActItaly's headline accessibility penalty is 5% of turnover, and almost nobody reading this will ever face it. That sanction only reaches private companies with average turnover above €500 million. The number that matters to everyone else comes from the European Accessibility Act's Italian transposition, where breaching the accessibility requirements carries an administrative sanction of €5,000 to €40,000. Two laws, two very different bills.Read the full guide →
- JapanJapan JIS X 8341-3Japan keeps the technical standard and the legal duty in two documents that never quite meet. JIS X 8341-3:2016 is the standard, and it is WCAG 2.0 in Japanese, criterion for criterion. The legal duty comes from a disability discrimination act that never mentions a website, and asks instead that you accommodate a person who tells you they are blocked. Since April 1, 2024 that duty binds every private business in Japan, at any size.Read the full guide →
- SpainSpain RD 1112/2018Spain runs two accessibility regimes, and the newer one probably does not reach you. That is worth checking before anything else. The European Accessibility Act exempts a service provider with fewer than 10 people whose annual turnover or balance sheet total is no more than €2 million. That exemption is outright and complete. Royal Decree 1112/2018 is the other regime, and it is the demanding one. It is aimed at the public sector, at anyone running a public service under contract, and at any website that took public money for its design or its upkeep.Read the full guide →
- NetherlandsNetherlandsThe Netherlands makes every public body declare in public how accessible its website actually is. Each declaration carries a status label running from A down to E, it goes into a central register anyone can search, and it expires. Let the examination behind it run past its three-year validity and the status drops to D on its own. No fine exists anywhere in this system. Visibility is the enforcement mechanism, and the government publishes how far that has got it.Read the full guide →
- IrelandIrelandIreland made European Accessibility Act non-compliance a criminal offense. Under the 2023 regulations that took effect on June 28, 2025, a conviction on indictment carries a fine of up to €60,000, or up to 18 months in prison, or both. A company's officers can be liable personally where the offense happened with their consent, connivance or approval, or through their wilful neglect. Underneath that sit two older layers, a public sector duty from 2005 and the technical standard the Web Accessibility Directive regulations added in 2020. And most small service businesses are exempt from the newest layer outright, which is the first thing to check.Read the full guide →
- BrazilBrazil LBIBrazil's federal government is under a court order right now. On 8 July 2026 a federal judge in São Paulo gave the Union 180 days to produce a digital accessibility plan for federal websites and web applications. The daily fine for missing it is R$10,000, and the court named ABNT NBR 17225:2025 as the standard to hit. That clock runs out in early January 2027. The case exists for a simple reason. Article 63 has bound Brazilian companies and government alike since 2016, and in eleven years nobody ever wrote the regulation that would say what it means.Read the full guide →
- IndiaIndia RPwDIndia's Supreme Court struck down the rule that made accessibility standards binding. On 8 November 2024, in Rajive Raturi v Union of India, it held Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules to be beyond what the Act allows. The seventeen documents that rule pointed at were recommendatory guidelines dressed up as mandatory ones. The Court gave the Union three months to write real ones. The government's answer is a draft gazetted on 20 July 2026, and in its current form it would reach any establishment, in India or abroad, that makes a website available to people in India.Read the full guide →
- New ZealandNew ZealandThe New Zealand Government Web Accessibility Standard names five categories of organisation and binds nobody else. Every Public Service department is the first of them, and then the Police, the Defence Force, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Security Intelligence Service. So it is five entries on a list rather than five organisations, and the first entry alone covers every department in the Public Service. Since 17 March 2025 it has asked for WCAG 2.2 Level AA, subject to six exceptions written into the standard itself. And it reaches inside the building, because intranets and document management systems are in scope alongside the public website.Read the full guide →
- South KoreaSouth KoreaIn September 2017, 963 blind plaintiffs sued the online marketplace Gmarket because the product photos its sellers uploaded carried no alternative text. Nine years later, on 12 March 2026, Korea's Supreme Court finished the case. The marketplace has to add alternative text within six months of the judgment becoming final, and it does not have to pay anybody. A first-instance court had awarded ₩100,000 per plaintiff. The Seoul High Court cancelled that award, holding there was indirect discrimination but no intent or negligence behind it, and the Supreme Court confirmed the cancellation.Read the full guide →
- SwitzerlandSwitzerland BehiGA private Swiss business sits inside the disability discrimination act, and a Swiss customer still cannot make it fix its website. That is this jurisdiction in one sentence. Article 6 of BehiG bans private providers of public services from discriminating on the ground of disability, and Article 8 gives the person on the wrong end of that exactly one remedy. They can ask a court for compensation, which Article 11 caps at CHF 5,000. No injunction lies against a private Swiss website. A revision now before Parliament would change that, and it cannot take effect before 2027.Read the full guide →
- DenmarkDenmarkDenmark's own national audit office went and checked. It found that 61% of the ministerial and regional homepages it examined failed at least one of the accessibility requirements it tested, and it published that on 15 April 2024, three and a half years after the last deadline for existing sites went by. It also called the regulator's supervision not entirely satisfactory, because the agency had never followed up on whether its own orders were being obeyed. That gap has since closed. A follow-up in January 2026 records new procedures from the start of 2025. All 23 orders it reviewed had been chased. Denmark runs one of Europe's most digitised public sectors, which is why an audit like that lands harder there than it would elsewhere.Read the full guide →
The part vendors skip
No law issues a compliance certificate, and no badge or overlay widget buys you protection. The tracker that follows these cases counted more than a thousand US businesses sued over their websites in 2025 with a widget already running on the page. That is over a hundred a month, month after month, and every one of them had paid for something sold to them as cover. What a complaint points at is the barrier, and the only answer to a complaint is evidence. What was tested, what failed, what was fixed, and proof of each. That is what our audits produce.
Know where you stand before someone else tells you.
Every law above measures against WCAG, and WCAG measures one page at a time. The standard has no such thing as a conforming website, only conforming pages, which is why an honest audit names the pages it covered. Ours covers up to 10, with an expert review of all 55 Level A and AA rules and a real blind screen-reader user on your key journeys. $499, 5 business days.
Order your audit
or start with the free scan
These guides are orientation, not legal advice, and reading them creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions about your specific situation, talk to your own lawyer.