writing an accessibility statement that doesn’t create liability
Many companies publish accessibility statements because someone told them they should. Sometimes it’s a lawyer. Sometimes it’s a procurement requirement. Sometimes it happens after an accessibility demand letter arrives.
The problem is simple: a poorly written accessibility statement can create legal exposure instead of reducing it.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys read these pages. They quote them in lawsuits. If the statement promises accessibility that the website does not deliver, the document becomes evidence.
A careful accessibility statement does something different. It explains what standards the site follows, describes known limitations, and avoids promises that can’t be verified.
This article explains how accessibility statements work, why companies publish them, and how to write one without creating legal risk.
what an accessibility statement actually is
An accessibility statement is a public page that explains how a website approaches digital accessibility.
The page usually includes:
• the accessibility standard the site aims to follow
• the current accessibility status
• technologies used on the site
• contact information for accessibility feedback
• known accessibility limitations
Many statements also explain how the website was tested and when the last accessibility review happened.
The most common standard referenced in accessibility statements is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
WCAG was published by the World Wide Web Consortium and updated several times. The current widely used version is WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
Those guidelines define accessibility requirements such as:
• keyboard navigation
• screen reader compatibility
• color contrast
• form labeling
• predictable navigation
An accessibility statement typically says the website “aims to conform” with WCAG.
That phrasing matters.
why accessibility statements appear in lawsuits
Accessibility lawsuits against websites often rely on a simple argument.
The complaint claims the website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because blind or visually impaired users cannot access core functionality.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys often include screenshots of accessibility problems.
They also quote the company’s accessibility statement.
Statements that promise full compliance become targets.
For example, a statement might say:
“Our website is fully compliant with WCAG 2.1.”
If automated testing or manual review later finds dozens of WCAG failures, the statement becomes evidence that the company misrepresented accessibility.
Attorneys sometimes highlight that contradiction in the complaint.
This happens more often than companies expect.
a lawsuit example where the accessibility statement was cited
A retail company based in California received a website accessibility complaint in 2023.
The lawsuit alleged that blind users could not complete purchases because product images lacked alternative text and checkout buttons were not labeled for screen readers.
The complaint referenced the company’s accessibility statement directly.
The statement claimed the website “fully complies with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.”
During early settlement discussions, the plaintiff’s attorney pointed out that a basic automated scan detected over 100 accessibility failures.
The company removed the statement during the lawsuit.
That didn’t matter. The page had already been captured and included in court filings.
The case settled several months later. Settlement terms were confidential.
The lesson is simple: statements that claim perfect compliance are easy to attack.
the most common mistake companies make
The biggest mistake is promising full compliance.
Statements often say things like:
“Our website is fully accessible to all users.”
Or:
“This site meets WCAG standards.”
Those claims sound harmless. They aren’t.
Even websites built by accessibility specialists rarely meet every WCAG success criterion perfectly across every page.
Large websites change constantly. New pages appear, plugins update, and design changes introduce new accessibility issues.
Absolute statements create legal exposure because they’re easy to disprove.
Accessibility lawyers read these pages carefully.
safer language used in accessibility statements
Most careful statements use language that describes goals rather than guarantees.
Typical wording includes phrases such as:
“We aim to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA.”
Or:
“We work to make our website accessible and usable for all visitors.”
Those statements describe intent instead of promising perfection.
That difference matters in legal filings.
Statements describing ongoing efforts are harder to use as evidence of misrepresentation.
what a responsible accessibility statement usually includes
A well-written accessibility statement contains several specific sections.
Accessibility standard referenced
Most websites reference Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Level AA.
The statement should clearly identify the version used during testing.
Example:
“This website aims to conform with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.”
Testing methods
Responsible statements explain how accessibility was evaluated.
Common methods include:
manual keyboard testing
screen reader testing
automated scanning tools
Providing testing details makes the statement more credible.
Testing dates
Accessibility testing has a shelf life.
Statements often include a line describing when the site was last evaluated.
Example:
“Accessibility testing was last performed in March 2025.”
Assistive technologies considered
Some statements list the tools used during testing.
Examples include screen readers such as NVDA or VoiceOver.
This section helps explain how accessibility was evaluated.
Known limitations
Many statements omit this section.
That’s a mistake.
Listing known accessibility limitations reduces legal risk because it acknowledges problems openly.
Example:
“Some PDF documents published before 2022 may not fully meet accessibility standards.”
Contact method for accessibility issues
Most accessibility statements provide an email address or form for accessibility feedback.
Some include a phone number.
Providing contact options gives users a way to report problems before they become legal complaints.
the trade-off of publishing an accessibility statement
Accessibility statements are not legally required under U.S. law.
Many companies publish them anyway.
There are two main reasons.
First, procurement.
Government agencies and universities often require vendors to publish accessibility documentation before purchasing software.
Second, accessibility complaints.
Some businesses prefer having a public accessibility page so users can report problems directly.
There is a trade-off.
A statement invites scrutiny.
Anyone can review the website and compare the statement to the site’s actual accessibility.
That’s why careful wording matters.
what plaintiffs’ attorneys look for in accessibility statements
Accessibility complaints often reference the same types of statements.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys look for:
claims of full compliance
statements saying the website is “accessible to all users”
references to WCAG compliance that lack testing evidence
statements that appear copied from templates
They also look for contradictions.
A website might claim accessibility while basic issues remain:
images missing alt text
forms without labels
keyboard navigation failures
Those contradictions appear in complaints.
an example of a safer accessibility statement structure
A careful accessibility statement usually follows a simple structure.
First section: accessibility commitment
Example wording:
“We aim to make this website accessible to visitors with disabilities and are working toward conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.”
Second section: testing and evaluation
Example:
“The website has been evaluated using automated testing tools and manual keyboard navigation testing. Screen reader testing was performed using NVDA on Windows.”
Third section: known limitations
Example:
“Some legacy PDF documents may not fully meet accessibility standards. We are working to update these files.”
Fourth section: contact information
Example:
“If you encounter accessibility barriers on this website, contact accessibility@example.com.”
That structure avoids exaggerated claims.
a small example that caused problems
A local healthcare provider in Florida published an accessibility statement copied from a website template.
The statement said:
“We guarantee that our website meets all WCAG requirements.”
The site contained hundreds of pages created over several years.
A manual accessibility review later found:
missing alt text across hundreds of images
PDF files without tagging
form fields without labels
low contrast text on appointment forms
The statement stayed online for two years.
When the provider later received an accessibility demand letter, the attorney included screenshots of the statement.
The promise of “all WCAG requirements” made the site an easy target.
why accessibility statements get copied from templates
Many website templates include accessibility statement pages.
WordPress themes sometimes include them.
So do accessibility overlay companies.
Those templates often contain broad promises about accessibility.
Developers copy the page, change the company name, and publish it without reviewing the language.
The result is a statement that doesn’t match the website.
That mismatch creates risk.
Accessibility statements should reflect the actual condition of the website.
accessibility overlays and statements
Accessibility overlay companies often encourage clients to publish accessibility statements.
The statements typically reference the overlay software and claim the tool improves accessibility.
These statements sometimes imply the overlay resolves accessibility issues automatically.
That claim has been criticized by accessibility advocates.
In 2021 more than 600 accessibility professionals signed an open letter criticizing overlays for failing to fix many accessibility problems.
The letter circulated widely in accessibility circles and was signed by developers, researchers, and assistive technology users.
Overlay software may change visual presentation or add accessibility tools. It does not automatically correct underlying code issues such as missing form labels or improper semantic markup.
Accessibility statements that imply automatic compliance can become misleading.
accessibility statements and the americans with disabilities act
The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require websites to publish accessibility statements.
The law also does not define a technical standard for website accessibility.
Courts frequently reference Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) when evaluating accessibility claims, but WCAG itself is not written into the ADA.
This legal structure creates uncertainty.
Companies use accessibility statements to describe their efforts to follow WCAG even though the ADA does not formally require the guidelines.
The statements function more like disclosures than compliance certifications.
limitations of accessibility statements
Accessibility statements are not proof of accessibility.
They are descriptions.
A statement does not prevent lawsuits. It also does not confirm that a website meets WCAG.
The page only explains what the company says about accessibility.
Real accessibility depends on the underlying code and design of the site.
That’s why accessibility testing matters more than the statement itself.
how often accessibility statements should be updated
Websites change frequently.
Content teams publish new pages. Developers add new features. Third-party plugins update.
Accessibility statements should reflect the current state of the site.
Many companies update their statement once per year.
Others update it after major redesigns.
Statements that reference outdated testing dates can look suspicious during legal review.
A statement saying “last tested in 2019” raises obvious questions.
what happens when companies remove accessibility statements
Some companies remove their accessibility statements after receiving demand letters.
The assumption is that removing the page reduces liability.
That rarely works.
Accessibility attorneys often capture screenshots of the page before sending demand letters.
If litigation begins, the statement may already be preserved as evidence.
Removing the page later does not erase earlier claims.
the role of legal review
Accessibility statements often pass through legal review before publication.
Lawyers usually focus on two areas:
avoiding guarantees of compliance
describing accessibility as an ongoing effort
Legal teams also check that the statement does not contradict internal documentation.
For example, if accessibility audits identified specific problems, the statement should not claim perfect accessibility.
Alignment between internal reports and public statements matters.
how large companies write accessibility statements
Large technology companies usually publish longer accessibility pages.
These pages sometimes include:
accessibility standards followed
accessibility design principles
assistive technologies supported
documentation links
contact forms for accessibility feedback
Even large companies avoid promising perfect compliance.
Most statements describe ongoing accessibility efforts instead.
That wording reflects the reality of complex software.
the relationship between accessibility statements and vpats
Accessibility statements and VPAT reports serve different purposes.
Accessibility statements are public web pages.
VPAT reports are detailed technical documents used in procurement reviews.
VPATs evaluate software against standards such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) or Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Accessibility statements summarize accessibility efforts in simpler language.
Companies selling software to government agencies often publish both documents.
the safest mindset when writing accessibility statements
Accessibility statements should be treated as technical disclosures.
They are not marketing pages.
They should describe what the website does today, how accessibility was tested, and how users can report problems.
Promises about perfect accessibility rarely survive real testing.
Accurate statements reduce contradictions between what a company claims and what users experience.
That alignment matters more than optimistic language.
Comments (0)
No comments yet.