No accessibility widget provides compliance with Law 11/2023. We review the FTC fine, the 2025 lawsuits, user studies, and what you should actually do.
Accessibility overlays—widgets installed on a website—do not provide compliance with Law 11/2023 or EN 301 549. Compliance is declared based on your website's code and content, not an added layer on top. Public evidence—an FTC fine, lawsuits, and user studies—points in the same direction.
Since the summer of 2025, a product has been marketed in Spain with a very specific pitch: a line of JavaScript, a monthly fee, and your website "complies with the European Accessibility Act." We have seen this in quotes shared with us by SME founders, in cold calls to businesses, and in proposals from agencies that outsource the widget and invoice it as a regulatory compliance line item.
This article is not an opinion piece about these products. It gathers what can be verified. Let us look at the documents, not opinions.
What an overlay promises vs. what it actually installs
An overlay is a third-party script injected into your website that attempts two things at runtime. The first is a visitor panel: increasing font size, increasing contrast, underlining links, or stopping animations. The second is the expensive part being sold: automatically repairing markup—adding alt text to images, inventing labels for form fields, adding ARIA attributes—without touching your source code.
The first part works, and it is also functionality that the browser and operating system already provide. The second part is what the evidence dismantles.
Here is the crux of the matter: the overlay modifies the visitor's DOM, not your website. Your HTML still has the image without an alt attribute, the input without a label, and the 2.8:1 contrast. If you uninstall the script tomorrow, nothing remains. You have not remediated; you have rented a layer of makeup that runs on top.
Standard industry practice: Installing a third-party script that rewrites the DOM in the visitor's browser and billing it as regulatory compliance. Your source code remains non-compliant, and the declaration you sign will not hold up under a review.
Our criteria: Correcting the HTML, components, and content at the source, keeping corrections in the repository, and being able to demonstrate each criterion with dated testing. What you fix remains fixed even if you switch design studios.
Evidence 1: A regulator has already fined the largest vendor for saying exactly that
On January 3, 2025, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with accessiBe Inc. The final order was approved in April 2025.
The FTC concluded two things: that the claim that accessWidget achieved WCAG compliance using artificial intelligence was deceptive and lacked substantiation, and that the company disseminated third-party reviews as if they were independent opinions, without disclosing the material connections it had with those who signed them.
The order expressly prohibits claiming that an automated product achieves WCAG compliance without solid evidence to support it.
Be clear on what this is and what it is not. This is a U.S. consumer authority, not a Spanish court, and it affects a specific company. It does not make overlays illegal in Spain. What it does do is put on the record, in a public file, that the category's central commercial argument did not withstand a regulator's scrutiny.
Evidence 2: The widget does not keep litigation away
In the United States, where digital accessibility litigation has been ongoing for a decade, there is an annual manual count of lawsuits.
One-third of the lawsuits that semester were filed against sites that already had the product installed. That figure does not prove that the overlay causes the lawsuit. It does, however, prove that it does not prevent it, which is the exact opposite of what is promised when selling it.
And there is a Spanish nuance to understand: there are no lawsuits of this type here because the mechanism is different. In Spain, the path is administrative, not mass individual claims. Just because you don't see headlines about lawsuits doesn't mean there is no risk; it means the risk comes through a different, slower, and quieter channel.
Evidence 3: The people it claims to serve prefer their own tools
The Accessible EU Centre library collects an academic paper published on March 11, 2024, that evaluates overlays using two methods simultaneously: technical review against WCAG 2.1 and a study with real users.
The finding that matters most for your purchasing decision is not the percentage of failed criteria. It is this: participants preferred their own assistive tools—their screen reader, their magnifier, their system settings—over the panel embedded in the website.
This makes professional sense. A blind person has spent years configuring their screen reader to the smallest detail. A panel that every website presents differently, with different shortcuts and behaviors, does not add anything for them; it adds one more obstacle between them and your content.
This is a small sample and it is a master's thesis, not a clinical trial. We mention this because we find it more honest than citing it as if it were definitive.
Evidence 4: Automated solutions don't even come close to covering everything
It is fair to be objective about technology. Automated detection of accessibility errors is useful, and significantly more so than a few years ago.
The manufacturer of the most used tool in the sector published a study in March 2021 covering over 2,000 audits, more than 13,000 pages, and some 300,000 incidents.
Take that 57% with the caution it deserves: it is signed by the company selling the tool, and it counts the volume of incidents, not compliance criteria. Even accepting it in full, the overlay argument collapses on its own. Detecting is not repairing. And what remains outside is precisely what determines if your website is useful: if the tab order makes sense, if the alt text describes what the image contributes, if the error message explains what to do, if the video has correct subtitles, if the checkout process can be completed using only a keyboard.
A script does not know what you meant by that image. No amount of inference replaces that.
The point that changes everything in Spain: the presumption of conformity
This is where the commercial argument breaks down entirely, and where almost no Spanish page positioning for this topic dares to venture.
Law 11/2023, of May 8 (BOE-A-2023-11022) transposes Directive (EU) 2019/882, and its accessibility requirements apply from June 28, 2025. The legal mechanism that interests you is in Article 15 of the Directive: the presumption of conformity is obtained by complying with harmonized standards. In practice, EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03), published in Spanish as UNE-EN 301 549:2022, which refers to WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content.
Read that slowly. The standard is met by the product or service itself. There is no legal mechanism by which installing a third-party component shifts your responsibility to that third party. You are the service provider. You declare. You are liable.
The presumption of conformity is earned by your website's code, not a vendor's script.
And as of February of this year, there is also an administrative structure waiting.
Royal Decree 143/2026, of February 25 (BOE-A-2026-4520), creates the Technical Support and Coordination Unit for accessibility oversight authorities, attached to the Directorate General for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has been in force since February 28, 2026, and acts, among other functions, as a contact point for public complaints. Verified on 08-27-2026.
Regarding the amounts, official transparency leaves much to be desired, and we say so plainly. The Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and Agenda 2030 places sanctions regarding equal opportunities and accessibility "between €301 and one million euros," without publicly breaking down the ranges by type of infraction on that page. If someone shows you an exact amount for your specific case, ask them for the article. The real range depends on the qualification of the infraction and the competent authority, which may be regional.
Before anything else: check if you are obligated
Three checks, and in a few minutes, you will know where you stand.
| Situation | Does Law 11/2023 apply to you? | Nuance almost no one mentions |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 10 employees and turnover or annual balance ≤ €2M, and you provide a service | No | Exemption from Art. 4.5 of Directive 2019/882, using the micro-enterprise definition of Art. 3.23 |
| Micro-enterprise that manufactures or distributes covered products | Yes | The exemption covers services, not products |
| E-commerce above those thresholds | Yes | Since 06-28-2025 |
| Service contracted before 06-28-2025 | Yes, with transition period | Art. 32: existing contracts may continue without modification until at most 06-28-2030 |
| Self-service terminal already in use | Yes, with transition period | Can continue to be used until the end of its useful life, capped at 20 years |
If you are a micro-enterprise providing services, the law does not obligate you. We would still fix the basics anyway, because the errors that break an accessible website are the same ones that ruin conversion. But we are not going to sell you an obligation you do not have.
The Spanish figures circulating, and how to read them
In August 2025, a web accessibility barometer was published in Spain stating that only 2% of audited corporate websites are fully compliant and 24% are "invalid." The work was conducted between April and August 2025 on websites of large companies in five sectors.
It does not publish the sample size or the selection method, and it is signed by a vendor that sells accessibility products. Curiously, that same barometer states that widgets do not provide real accessibility nor put the company in a position of compliance.
Our position is simple: a figure without an 'n', a timeframe, and a method is an advertising figure, even if it happens to support our point. We cite it because it exists and because you will be shown it. We do not use it as evidence.
Contrast this with the most solid annual count there is: the 2026 WebAIM Million, published on March 30, 2026, using February data, detects WCAG failures in 95.9% of the million homepages analyzed, with an average of 56.1 errors per page, compared to 94.8% and 51 errors the previous year. That report, by the way, does not measure overlays. No one with data from a million pages has published that a widget improves the result.
What to ask the salesperson who calls you
- Do I sign the declaration of conformity, or do you sign it? (If they say "us," it is not true: you are the service provider)
- What happens to my compliance the day I cancel the subscription?
- Can you show me a report of a manual audit with a screen reader on my website, performed by a human?
- Does the contract include compensation if an oversight authority opens a file? With what limit and what exclusions?
- Which criteria of UNE-EN 301 549:2022 do you correct in the source code, and which only in the visitor's DOM?
If the answer to the third is "artificial intelligence does it," you know everything you need to know.
A note on the sector's climate, because it explains why you find little criticism in Spanish. In 2023, one of these vendors took an accessibility consultant to court for his public criticism; part of the file, including the technical sheet on overlays submitted as evidence, is published. Writing this has a cost, which is why almost no one writes it.
What we do instead of the widget
We do not sell stickers. We correct the origin and leave you with the evidence.
| # | Phase | What we do | Deliverables |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Listen | We start by asking who cannot use your website today, not by proposing tools. | Interviews · Template inventory · Critical paths |
| 02 | Define | We agree on what winning means: which criteria of UNE-EN 301 549:2022, on which pages, and with what proof. | Scope · Success criteria · Planned declaration |
| 03 | Map | We separate what is fixed in the design system from what is fixed in the content. | Grid · Contrast · Visible focus · Tab order |
| 04 | Design | We correct proportion, typographic rhythm, and hierarchy where the failure is design-related, not code-related. | Accessible components · Error states |
| 05 | Build | Automated checks enter CI/CD and block deployment; manual checks are performed with a screen reader. | Traceable commits · Keyboard testing · NVDA and VoiceOver |
| 06 | Launch & Support | We deliver code, source files, documentation, and the declaration with its date, including 30 days of support. | Handoff · Training · Dated report |
The actual scope and price depend on how many templates you have and the state of your content. Fixed price per phase, agreed upon before starting. No surprise hours.
| Item | Figure | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Correction in components and design system | — | — |
| Correction of content and alt text | — | — |
| Manual audit with screen reader | — | — |
| Automation in CI and documentation | — | — |
— = data being measured; we will publish it once we have our own sample.
Frequently asked questions
Can installing an overlay make my website worse?
Yes, it can: the study with 21 visually impaired people collected by the Accessible EU Centre found cases where the overlay hindered usability and participants who preferred their own assistive tools. We do not promise it will happen to you, because it depends on the product and your website. We promise that no one has published data that proves the opposite.
I have had the widget installed for a year. Should I remove it now?
Remove it when you have remediation underway, not before, because the visual preferences panel is used by some people. What you should remove today is any sticker or text on your website claiming compliance: that assertion is what exposes you.
We are four people and have a turnover of €300,000. Does the EAA apply to us?
If you provide services and are below 10 people and €2 million in turnover or balance, you are exempt under Article 4.5 of Directive 2019/882. If you manufacture or distribute any of the covered products, the exemption does not apply.
How much does it cost to do it right versus the widget subscription?
The honest comparison is not subscription versus project, but an indefinite subscription versus work that remains done in your repository.
Is there a seal that can give me peace of mind?
No, and be wary of anyone selling one. What you can have is your own accessibility declaration, dated, with the evaluation method and the non-compliant criteria listed. That does not shield you, but it demonstrates due diligence, which is what an oversight authority looks at.
Our position
Accessibility is not a layer applied on top: it is a property of the material your website is made of. We reject the noise, the trends, and the vacuum effect, and a script that rewrites the DOM to make it seem like you are compliant is exactly that.
Does this way of working fit you? Tell us what you are dealing with in an initial 30-minute call at no cost. If your website is already reasonably good and only needs three fixes, we will tell you, and there is no project.
Keep reading
- Web accessibility in Spain after the European Accessibility Act: who is obligated and what is required
- How to check if your website complies: 20-minute self-assessment test
- Downloadable EAA checklist to review your website by items
- 18 questions to ask an agency before signing (and what answer is a red flag)
- How to audit a web budget: 14 signs you are being sold smoke
Transparency note. Some of our own data in this guide is still being measured on real projects, with a single method. We will publish it with its sample size and date range once the sample is large enough; until then, every figure you see carries its source and date of consultation.
Sources
- https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-order-requires-online-marketer-pay-1-million-deceptive-claims-its-ai-product-could-make-websites — FTC press release 01-03-2025: $1,000,000 penalty for accessiBe, unfounded WCAG claims, and paid reviews without link disclosure
- https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/04/ftc-approves-final-order-requiring-accessibe-pay-1-million — Approval of final order in April 2025
- https://blog.usablenet.com/2025-midyear-accessibility-lawsuit-report-key-legal-trends — 2,019 digital accessibility lawsuits through June 2025 in the U.S.; ~659 (≈33%) against sites with an accessibility widget; manual review methodology
- https://accessible-eu-centre.ec.europa.eu/content-corner/digital-library/impact-web-accessibility-overlays-usability-and-user-experience-people-permanent-visual-impairments_en — Study by Daniela Kubesch (03-11-2024) with 21 participants with visual disabilities: marginal benefits, cases of worsened usability, preference for their own assistive tools
- https://www.deque.com/blog/automated-testing-study-identifies-57-percent-of-digital-accessibility-issues/ — Deque study (03-10-2021): 57% of incidents covered by automated testing across 2,000+ audits, 13,000+ pages, and ~300,000 incidents; cites 20-30% as previous industry belief. Source from the manufacturer itself
- https://webaim.org/projects/million/ — WebAIM Million 2026 (February 2026 data, published 03-30-2026): 95.9% of homepages with detected WCAG failures and average of 56.1 errors per page; does not measure overlays
- https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2023-11022 — Law 11/2023, of May 8: transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/882, application of requirements since 06-28-2025, chapters on harmonized standards and sanctioning regime
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882 — Directive (EU) 2019/882: Art. 3.23 (micro-enterprise: <10 people and ≤€2M turnover or balance), Art. 4.5 (exemption for service-providing micro-enterprises), Art. 15 (presumption of conformity by harmonized standards), Art. 32 (transition periods: contracts until 06-28-2030, self-service terminals until 20 years)
- https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2026-4520 — Royal Decree 143/2026, of February 25: creates the Technical Support and Coordination Unit for oversight authorities, attached to the DG for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in force since 02-28-2026, contact point for complaints
- https://www.dsca.gob.es/en/derechos-sociales/discapacidad/derechos-personas-discapacidad/infracciones-y-sanciones — Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and Agenda 2030: sanctions "between 301 and one million euros," without public breakdown of ranges on that page
- https://accesibilidadweb.dlsi.ua.es/?menu=une301549-2022 — UNE-EN 301 549:2022, Spanish version of EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03), referring to WCAG 2.1 level AA for web content
- https://www.insuit.net/es/barometro-accesibilidad-web-2025/ — Web Accessibility Barometer 2025 (April-August 2025): 2% of corporate websites compliant, 24% "invalid"; no n or method published, signed by an accessibility vendor. Cited with explicit reservations in the article
- https://adrianroselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/803054_2023_AUDIOEYE_INC_v_ADRIAN_ROSELLI_EXHIBIT_S__16.pdf — public documentary evidence from the AudioEye Inc. v. Adrian Roselli case (2023), incorporating the technical sheet on overlays submitted as evidence
Want to see this thinking applied to a real project?