No. An accessibility statement does not give you legal protection on its own. It is a document that describes how accessible your site is and how people can report problems. It does not change the code, and no law I know of treats publishing one as a defence against a claim that a page is unusable. W3C's own guidance says it plainly: accessibility statements "are not technical assessments or declarations of conformity" (W3C WAI). What a statement can do is narrower and still useful. Under the European Accessibility Act it is part of a legal duty, so not having the required information is its own gap. In the US it has no formal role, but a truthful one with a working feedback route helps you catch barriers before they turn into complaints. And a dishonest one creates risk: the FTC's 2025 order against accessiBe was about overstated accessibility claims (FTC). So the honest answer on accessibility statement legal protection is this. The statement protects you about as well as the work it describes, and an inaccurate one can make things worse.
What is an accessibility statement actually for?
W3C lists three purposes: show users you care about accessibility, tell them how accessible your content is, and demonstrate commitment (W3C WAI). None of them is "limit liability". The page was last updated in March 2021 and has no section on legal protection at all, which tells you something about how the standards body sees it.
In practice a good statement answers four questions for a visitor who has hit a barrier:
- Which standard did you test against (for example WCAG 2.1 AA, or EN 301 549 in the EU)?
- What works and what does not, today?
- What can I use instead while the broken part is fixed?
- Who do I contact, and what happens after I do?
That last question is where most of the practical value sits. A person who can reach you by email and get the PDF in another format has less reason to escalate.
Does an accessibility statement protect you under the EAA?
It helps you meet one obligation. It does not cover the rest.
Article 13(2) of the European Accessibility Act requires service providers to "prepare the necessary information in accordance with Annex V" and to "explain how the services meet the applicable accessibility requirements". That information must be public, accessible to people with disabilities, and kept "for as long as the service is in operation" (Directive (EU) 2019/882, Art. 13). Most teams meet that duty with an accessibility statement page linked from the footer and their terms.
Notice what Article 13 sits next to. Paragraph 1 of the same article says service providers "shall ensure that they design and provide services in accordance with the accessibility requirements" (Art. 13). Those are two separate duties. A statement that honestly says "our checkout fails keyboard access" satisfies the information duty and, in the same sentence, documents that you have not met the accessibility one.
Enforcement is national. Article 29 requires member states to ensure "adequate and effective means exist to ensure compliance", including routes for a consumer to take action before courts or administrative bodies, and for organisations with a legitimate interest to do the same (Art. 29). Nothing in that article excuses a provider because it published a statement. Our EAA guide covers who is in scope and what Annex I asks for.
The public-sector rules point the same way. The model statement under Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523 must include a feedback mechanism and a link to the enforcement procedure. The template tells users how to complain about you to a regulator. That is not a design meant to shield anyone.
Does an accessibility statement protect you under the ADA?
In the US the statement has no defined legal status at all. The Department of Justice says it "does not have a regulation setting out detailed standards" for web accessibility, and that businesses "have flexibility in how they comply" with the ADA's requirements (DOJ, 2022). The same guidance does not mention accessibility statements. It does recommend one thing a statement usually contains: websites that provide "a way for the public to report accessibility problems" (DOJ).
A website accessibility complaint is about a specific barrier a specific person hit. The question in front of a court is whether the barrier exists, not what your footer page says about your values. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Still, I have yet to see a credible argument that a statement alone answers a claim like that. Your counsel will care far more about what you fixed, when you fixed it, and what records you kept. The ADA overview explains how Title III applies to websites, and if a letter has already arrived, our post on responding to an ADA demand letter walks through the calm first steps.
Can an accessibility statement increase your legal risk?
Yes, if it claims more than you can back up. Here is the plain case. In April 2025 the FTC approved a final order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million. The complaint said the company claimed its product could make any website WCAG compliant when "accessWidget did not make all user websites WCAG-compliant", and the order bars that kind of claim without evidence (FTC). That order was about a vendor's marketing, not a site owner's statement. The lesson carries over anyway. A public sentence saying your site "is WCAG 2.2 AA conformant" is a factual claim about your product. If a user can show three failing criteria in five minutes, that sentence is the first thing anyone will quote back to you.
The usual ways a statement goes wrong:
| What the statement says | Why it is a problem | What to write instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Our site is accessible to everyone" | No site with real content can support that | "We aim to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Known gaps are listed below." |
| "Certified WCAG compliant" (with a badge) | There is no official WCAG certification body | Name who tested, how, and when |
| A conformance claim based only on an automated scan | Scans find a share of issues, not all of them | Say which parts were tested manually |
| No known issues section | Every real audit finds something | List them with a target date |
| A feedback email nobody reads | Users get no response, and the route is useless | A monitored address with a response time you actually keep |
The scan row is the one I see most often. Deque's study of more than 2,000 audits found automated testing identified about 57% of issues by volume, and the share is lower when you count by success criteria (Deque, 2021). The commonly quoted range for automation is roughly 30–57%. A scanner, ours included, cannot tell you whether your alt text makes sense or whether a screen reader user can finish checkout. Our post on what "WCAG compliant" actually means goes into how to phrase a conformance claim you can defend.
So what does an accessibility statement actually do for you?
Where a duty exists, it fulfils that duty. EU service providers in scope of the EAA need the Annex V information, and public bodies under the Web Accessibility Directive need the model statement. Having it meets that one requirement. Missing it is a gap a regulator can point to.
It also routes problems to you instead of past you. A contact channel with a real person behind it gives a frustrated customer somewhere to go that is not a regulator or a lawyer, and DOJ recommends exactly that channel (DOJ).
The less obvious benefit: you cannot fill in a "known limitations" section without testing. In my experience that is the statement's real value. Writing an honest one makes the team find out what is broken.
Here is the opinion I hold firmly. A statement written to reassure lawyers reads like marketing and helps nobody. A statement written for the blind customer who cannot get past your date picker tends to be the one that also holds up under scrutiny, because it is specific and true.
How do you write a statement that holds up?
Treat it as a dated record, not a pledge.
- Name the standard and version. "WCAG 2.1 Level AA" or "EN 301 549 V3.2.1", not "accessibility best practices".
- Say how you tested. Automated scan of N pages plus manual keyboard and screen-reader review of the checkout and account flows, for example. Give the date.
- List known issues in plain words. "The store locator map has no text alternative; use the address list below the map." Name the success criterion if you know it (1.1.1 in that example).
- Give a target date for each fix, and update the statement when you ship it.
- Offer a working contact route and say what happens next, such as a reply within two business days.
- For EU services, cover Annex V and link your terms. For public bodies, use the Implementing Decision 2018/1523 model, including the enforcement procedure.
- Never claim full conformance off a scan.
Our accessibility statement generator produces a structured draft with these sections. The wording of the conformance status is still yours to decide, and it should match your test results. The accessibility statement guide has the field-by-field detail.
Frequently asked questions
Does an accessibility statement protect you legally?
No, not on its own. It documents your accessibility status and gives users a way to report problems, but it does not fix barriers, and W3C notes statements "are not technical assessments or declarations of conformity" (W3C WAI).
Is an accessibility statement legally required?
It depends on where you operate and what you are. EU service providers in EAA scope must publish the Annex V information (Art. 13), and EU public bodies must publish a statement under the Web Accessibility Directive. The US DOJ's web guidance does not require one (DOJ).
Can I be sued even if I have an accessibility statement?
Yes. Under the EAA, consumers and organisations with a legitimate interest can take action before national courts or administrative bodies regardless of any statement (Art. 29). Under the ADA, claims are about barriers on the site, which a statement does not remove.
Can an accessibility statement be used against me?
It can if it overstates your conformance. A blanket conformance claim is a factual statement about your product, and in the 2025 accessiBe case the FTC treated an unsupported claim of WCAG compliance as deceptive (FTC).
Should my statement list known accessibility issues?
Yes. Listing known issues with alternatives and target dates is what makes the statement credible, and the EU public-sector model requires a non-accessible content section (Implementing Decision 2018/1523).
Start with what is actually broken
A statement is only as good as the testing behind it. Run a free scan to get the machine-detectable failures on your real pages, with the selector and success criterion for each. Then have a person test the parts a scan cannot judge, and write your known-issues section from both. That gives you a statement you can stand behind.
Pavel Charkasau, founder, wcagc.com. Last updated 31 October 2026.
Sources
- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, Developing an Accessibility Statement — purposes of a statement; statements "are not technical assessments or declarations of conformity"; some organisations, such as public bodies under the EU Web Accessibility Directive, are required to publish one. Updated 11 March 2021; accessed 31 October 2026.
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act), Article 13 — service providers design and provide services per the accessibility requirements (para. 1); prepare Annex V information, make it public in accessible form and keep it while the service operates (para. 2). Accessed 31 October 2026 via legislation.gov.uk's copy of the EU text.
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act), Article 29 — member states ensure "adequate and effective means exist to ensure compliance", including consumer action before courts or administrative bodies and action by organisations with a legitimate interest. Accessed 31 October 2026.
- European Commission, Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523 — model accessibility statement for public-sector bodies under Directive (EU) 2016/2102, including non-accessible content, feedback mechanism and enforcement procedure sections. Accessed 31 October 2026.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA — no regulation setting detailed web standards; flexibility in how businesses comply; recommends providing a way for the public to report accessibility problems; no mention of accessibility statements. Dated 18 March 2022; accessed 31 October 2026.
- Federal Trade Commission, FTC Approves Final Order Requiring accessiBe to Pay $1 Million — final order approved 22 April 2025 by a 3-0 vote; alleged that "accessWidget did not make all user websites WCAG-compliant"; bars such claims without supporting evidence. Accessed 31 October 2026.
- Deque Systems, Automated Testing Study Identifies 57% of Digital Accessibility Issues — more than 2,000 audits; about 57% of issues by volume found by automated testing, lower when counted by success criteria. Accessed 31 October 2026.