
The FTC has issued a complaint and fine against accessiBe. Here’s what you need to know about it and what it means for web designers and developers.
Music: https://www.bensound.com
Show Notes
- FTC complaint against accessiBe
- Submit comments
- Episode 182: Accessibility Conformance versus Compliance
- September 25, 2020, Webdesigner Depot blog post
- “How to Make Your Website ADA Compliant Using accessiBe”
- Overlay False Claims website
- Adrian Roselli’s breakdown of the case
- 3 Easy Steps Into Web Accessibility webinar
You may have noticed it’s been a while since I released a podcast. If so, thanks for noticing. I had to take some time off to deal with some family health issues—people and pets. But I was also feeling really burnt out. I hadn’t had a vacation in 20 years, and I had been working between my consulting business and this business every day for six years straight. I used some of that time to not just take some trips to the beach but to also reflect on some things as well as refocus.
My goal was to get back into the podcast at the start of the year, so here we are.
If you listen to the podcast, have followed me for some time or have taken any of my accessibility courses, you are probably aware of my stance on website accessibility overlays.
A website overlay is typically installed by inserting a line of javascript code on a website. It doesn’t affect the site’s underlying code. Instead it works at the browser level.
Many overlay companies claim that once you install the overlay, your website will be “compliant” to a certain degree. I say “compliant” in quotes, and you will understand why in a minute.
Why AccessiBe Was Fined by FTC
AccessiBe is one overlay company.
Someone filed a complaint with the FTC. The FTC then investigated and found that accessiBe misrepresented their overlay’s ability to make websites compliant with WCAG, the accessibility guidelines.
On January 3, 2025, the FTC filed a complaint against accessiBe, charging them on three counts:
- false or unsubstantiated performance claims,
- deceptively formatted advertising,
- deceptive failure to disclose material connections.
AccessiBe can no longer say or imply that their overlay makes websites WCAG compliant.
The FTC has also proposed an order for them to pay a $1 million settlement.
The public can submit comments until February 5, 2025.
Is this a win for accessibility? Yes. But the amount is a drop in the bucket for accessiBe. They have gotten millions and millions in funding.
AccessiBe’s Claims
Let’s get into the details.
Since 2019, accessiBe has claimed that their overlay uses “one line of code” to make a website compliant—with 30% of the WCAG requirements immediately and then with an A.I. process to make the website fully compliant within 48 hours.
They touted on their home page: “#1 Web Accessibility Solution for WCAG & ADA Compliance.”
Not only that, but they promised that their overlay would ensure the website was accessible even when content was modified, because it would rescan the site every 24 hours.
There are quite a few issues with all of this.
First off, not all accessibility errors can be addressed with an overlay.
In the complaint, the FTC noted that the overlay:
… fails or has failed to make basic and essential website components like menus, headings, tables, images, recordings, and more, compliant with WCAG and accessible to persons with disabilities.
The FTC later went on to acknowledge that websites using the overlay contained barriers that made it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to use the website, such as missing or inaccurate Alt-text, a missing focus indicator, keyboard traps, incorrect heading levels, and issues with menus, buttons, and tables.
One example noted in the complaint is a photo of a filet mignon on a ceramic plate. The Alt-text provided by the overlay was “Brown bread on white ceramic plate.”
Why does this matter? Well, in some cases, inaccurate Alt-text could not only cause confusion but they could cost a business sales.
Steak and bread are entirely different things. What if that image and Alt-text were on a restaurant web page talking about gluten-free options?
The complaint also specified some accessibility issues such as:
- Certain menu tabs being selected when they had not been selected by the user, such as a dessert option being voiced as selected, when the content was actually about appetizers;
- Button labels that incorrectly indicated when website menu options were expanded or collapsed, resulting in certain users not being able to tell if they had opened a menu list or not;
- Improperly coded status or error messages, causing screen readers to not notify a user when they added an item to a shopping cart, or if a user needed to still complete part of a form before submitting it;
- Improperly coded labels, causing a screen reader to voice a 5-star rating graphic as a “previous” button instead.
These are just a few of the errors mentioned. But I hope you can see how these would greatly impact a user’s experience on a website. It could provide them with completely different information than what they should be getting.
Second is that accessiBe promised “compliance.” Compliance and conformance are different things. I talked about this in episode 182, Accessibility Conformance versus Compliance.
In short, compliance is when a business adheres to a law. It goes beyond just having a website that conforms to accessibility guidelines and practices.
Conformance, on the other hand, refers to a website, app, etc. adhering to accessibility standards. A company’s website could conform to accessibility standards, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the business is in compliance. There are other factors outside of a website that have to be considered.
So it’s one thing to say a website conforms to WCAG. But promising compliance takes on more of a legal responsibility.
Anyway, this event has been a long time coming, in my opinion. Many accessibility specialists, including myself, have demonstrated how overlays do not work and that many of them make claims they cannot support.
But wait, there’s more. If you haven’t already, grab your drink of choice and pull up a chair and listen.
AccessiBe’s Deceptive Marketing Practices
They were found to also have paid third parties to publish articles and reviews to promote their product, making them appear to be impartial and independent.
This is interesting, because some people have speculated this very thing over the past few years. It just didn’t make sense that so many people with disabilities publicly stated that they didn’t like the overlay, while accessiBe was touting so many happy users who were people with disabilities.
On page 18 of the complaint, it says:
Although the September 25, 2020, Webdesigner Depot blog post is formatted to appear as an independent review, Respondents [accessiBe] paid $1,900 for the review and approved it prior to its publication. Webdesigner Depot, one of accessiBe’s advertising partners, had also received accessWidget [the overlay] on its website, webdesignerdepot.com, and three others, in exchange for additional advertising in Webdesigner Depot publications and social media.
Not only that, but the blog post did not originally disclose their relationship with accessiBe. According to the complaint, it was only after Webdesigner Depot got backlash from readers that they added in small print at the end of the enormously long post that it had been published in partnership with accessiBe.
accessiBe also paid $850 for a so-called “review” for uxplanet.org called “How to Make Your Website ADA Compliant Using accessiBe.”
AccessiBe’s employees and others apparently warned accessiBe about how failing to disclose their material connections in these reviews was deceptive.
As if that isn’t alarming enough, the complaint says that accessiBe asked third parties to remove or omit disclosures about material connections when publishing the reviews.
The complaint also mentions that accessiBe knew about the Overlay False Claims website (one I’ve mentioned before) since at least December 2021 and that they tracked the website and social media posts that promoted it, because they wanted to monitor the negative press.
It goes on to talk about how their terms did not disclose—adequately if at all—that certain parts of a website (PDFs, PowerPoint files, audio and video files, etc.) will not be made accessible unless additional services are purchased.
Adrian Roselli also did a great breakdown of the accessiBe case if you want to check that out too.
What This Means for Web Designers and Developers
So what does this means for web designers and developers? Why should you care?
First off, if you have clients who have been pushing you to install this on their website, you now have your case made.
Second, if any of your client sites use an overlay, you could approach them about redesigning or remediating the website to make it accessible and not use an overlay at all.
Remember: overlays do not affect the underlying code on the website.
So using the right code from the start or fixing what’s already there is a better investment toward making a site accessible. Plus, you have more control over it that way.
Even if you know nothing about website accessibility right now or you’re confused about where to get started, there are some clear and easy steps you can take today to help your clients.
Find out by registering for my free webinar, 3 Easy Steps Into Web Accessibility.