ADA compliant websites, fixed in the code, not covered with a widget

In practice, it is a website that people with disabilities can use: someone who is blind using a screen reader, someone who cannot use a mouse, someone with low vision zoomed in, someone who is deaf watching your video. The ADA itself does not list technical rules for business websites, so the working standard is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) at Level AA, version 2.1 or the current 2.2. When we say a site is built for ADA compliance, we mean it is built and tested against WCAG AA.

The Department of Justice has said the ADA applies to the goods and services businesses open to the public offer online, but it has not adopted a regulation with a specific technical standard for private businesses, and it says businesses have flexibility in how they comply. WCAG is the standard DOJ points to as helpful guidance, and it is what demand letters and courts measure sites against. For state and local governments, DOJ adopted WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the required standard in its April 2024 Title II rule.

Build to 2.2 AA when you can. WCAG 2.2 is the current W3C Recommendation and is backward compatible, so content that meets 2.2 also meets 2.1. It adds a few practical criteria, such as focus that is not hidden behind sticky headers and minimum target sizes for buttons and links. WCAG 2.1 AA is the floor we audit existing sites against, since it is the version the DOJ adopted for government sites.

California's Unruh Civil Rights Act treats a violation of the federal ADA as a violation of state law (Civil Code section 51(f)), and Civil Code section 52(a) sets damages of at least $4,000 for each offense, plus attorney's fees. The California Supreme Court held in Munson v. Del Taco (2009) that a plaintiff who proves an ADA violation does not also have to prove intentional discrimination to recover those damages. Federal ADA claims by private plaintiffs generally lead to an order to fix the barrier rather than money damages, so the state law is where the financial exposure comes from.

This is not legal advice. Do not ignore the letter, and talk to an attorney before you respond to it or pay anything, because deadlines and strategy are legal questions we cannot answer. What we can do is the technical side: audit the site against WCAG AA, fix the barriers in the code, and give you and your attorney a dated written record of what was found and what was changed. We cannot promise that any website will never receive a letter, and anyone who guarantees that is overselling.

Not on its own. A toolbar that adjusts text size or contrast can be a convenience, and the DOJ describes automated checkers and overlays as tools that can help when used carefully. But an overlay runs on top of the existing code, and it cannot reliably repair unlabeled forms, broken keyboard navigation, or missing structure underneath. In 2025 the FTC finalized an order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million over claims that its AI tool could make any website WCAG compliant. If you keep a widget, keep it on top of accessible code, not in place of it.

No. Scanners are fast and useful for the mechanical checks, like missing alt attributes, contrast ratios, and unlabeled fields. They cannot tell whether alt text is accurate, whether a menu traps the keyboard, what a screen reader actually announces, or whether someone can finish your booking form. The DOJ's own guidance says a clean report does not necessarily mean everything is accessible and recommends pairing automated checks with a manual review. Our audits do both.

It depends on the size of the site, the platform, and how many templates and third-party tools are involved, so we quote audits and remediation at a fixed price after we review the site. You get the number in writing before work starts. For ongoing care, our monthly web plans cover hosting, updates, and content changes, which is where new accessibility issues usually get introduced.