RatedWithAI
Accessibility scanner
DOJ Says WCAG Is Not the ADA Standard: What This Means for Your Business
For 15 years, every DOJ accessibility settlement required WCAG compliance. Now, in an unprecedented footnote buried in the Fashion Nova case, the Department of Justice declared it "does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard" for ADA compliance. This single sentence could reshape how businesses approach web accessibility — or it could mean nothing at all. Here's what you need to know.
"The United States does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard for the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Title III of the ADA."
Table of Contents
What the DOJ Actually Said
On February 2, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc., a federal class action in the Northern District of California. The DOJ opposed the proposed settlement — but it was a footnote that sent shockwaves through the accessibility community.
Buried within the filing, the DOJ stated that "the United States does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard for the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Title III of the ADA." The DOJ clarified it was merely applying WCAG because the plaintiff had chosen it as the benchmark in the proposed settlement.
This matters because WCAG — the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines — has been the de facto standard for web accessibility compliance in virtually every ADA lawsuit, DOJ settlement, and consent decree for over 15 years. No government agency, court, or legal authority has ever formally established an alternative.
⚠️ Important Context
This was a footnote in one case — not a new regulation, executive order, or formal policy change. It carries legal significance as a statement of the government's position, but it does not create new law or invalidate existing WCAG-based settlements and consent decrees.
As noted by legal experts at Seyfarth Shaw, this position "seems inconsistent with DOJ's many settlement agreements which adopt WCAG 2.0 AA or 2.1 AA as the accessibility standard."
The Fashion Nova Case: Context Matters
To understand the DOJ's footnote, you need to understand the case it appeared in. Alcazar v. Fashion Nova alleged that the California-based online retailer's website was inaccessible to blind users, violating both ADA Title III and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The proposed settlement included three components that concerned the DOJ:
The math tells the story: attorneys would receive more money than the people they claimed to represent. The injunctive relief required Fashion Nova to modify its website "as needed" to achieve "substantial conformance" with WCAG 2.1 — vague language with no enforcement mechanism. Accessibility audits were purely optional.
Perhaps most damning: the DOJ engaged its own digital accessibility consultant to inspect the settlement administrator's website — the site where blind class members would need to submit claims — and found it was not accessible to screen readers. The very mechanism created to help blind people was itself inaccessible.
The DOJ also noted that the plaintiff had filed 20 nearly identical lawsuits in 2020 and 2021, and that Class Counsel had filed "the same exact lawsuit, on behalf of repeat plaintiffs" in over 500 cases between 2019 and 2023.
As Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon stated: "Congress intended the Department and Courts to be skeptical of settlements that instead enrich private counsel." The DOJ's opposition was clearly aimed at the settlement structure — but the WCAG footnote adds a different dimension entirely.
15 Years of DOJ Settlements That Required WCAG
The DOJ's footnote is remarkable precisely because it contradicts over a decade of the department's own enforcement history. Here are just some of the major settlements where the DOJ itself required WCAG compliance:
The pattern is unmistakable: when the DOJ resolved accessibility cases, it consistently pointed to WCAG as the technical benchmark. The 2024 Title II rule went even further, explicitly codifying WCAG 2.1 Level AA as a binding legal requirement for government websites.
So when the same department now says it "does not endorse WCAG" for Title III purposes, accessibility professionals and legal experts are understandably confused. Is this a genuine policy shift, or a narrowly tailored argument in one specific case?
Why This Footnote Is Unprecedented
Three things make this footnote historically significant:
1. It's the First Time the DOJ Has Explicitly Distanced Itself from WCAG
While the DOJ has never formally adopted WCAG as a Title III regulation, it has never before stated that it does not endorse it. There's a world of difference between "we haven't issued a formal rule" and "we do not endorse this standard." The latter is an active rejection — and that's new.
2. It Creates a Vacuum with No Alternative
The DOJ has said WCAG isn't endorsed — but hasn't proposed what is. There is currently no alternative technical standard for web accessibility with comparable breadth, international adoption, or testing infrastructure. This leaves businesses in a compliance limbo: the old standard is questioned, but nothing replaces it.
3. It Contradicts the DOJ's Own Title II Rule
In 2024, the same DOJ formally adopted WCAG 2.1 AA as the binding standard for state and local government websites under ADA Title II. That rule has compliance deadlines in April 2026 (large entities) and April 2027 (small entities). The apparent contradiction between the Title II rule and this Title III footnote adds to the confusion.
The ADA's Technical Standard Problem
To understand why this matters, you need to understand a fundamental gap in the ADA itself.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990 — five years before JavaScript, seven years before Google, and nine years before WiFi. The law requires "full and equal enjoyment" of goods and services offered by places of public accommodation, but it does not define what that means for a website.
Compare this to the physical world: the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) specify exactly how wide a doorway must be (32 inches minimum), how steep a ramp can be (1:12 ratio), and where grab bars must be placed. For websites? Nothing. The law is silent.
This gap has been filled by WCAG through practical necessity. Courts needed a standard to evaluate accessibility claims. The DOJ needed a benchmark for settlement terms. Businesses needed something concrete to build toward. WCAG — developed by the W3C with input from disability advocates, technologists, and government agencies worldwide — became that standard by default.
For Section 508 — the law governing federal government technology — this gap was formally closed in 2017 when the Access Board adopted WCAG 2.0 AA as the binding technical standard. For ADA Title II, the 2024 rule adopted WCAG 2.1 AA. But for Title III — which covers private businesses, and where the overwhelming majority of accessibility lawsuits are filed — no formal standard has ever been adopted.
The DOJ's footnote highlights this gap rather than closing it. It essentially says: "We acknowledge there's no formal standard for private websites, and we're not going to create one by endorsing WCAG." The problem is that 8,667 federal ADA lawsuits were filed in 2025 — and every one of them needs some technical framework to evaluate claims.
What This Means for Your Business
Let's be direct about the practical implications:
✅ What Hasn't Changed
- •Your legal obligation under the ADA to provide accessible websites (courts have consistently ruled websites are "places of public accommodation")
- •The effectiveness of WCAG 2.1 AA as a technical framework for achieving actual accessibility
- •The risk of lawsuits — 8,667 filed in 2025, with ~46% of defendants facing repeat litigation
- •Existing DOJ consent decrees and settlement agreements requiring WCAG compliance
- •The Title II rule requiring WCAG 2.1 AA for government websites
⚠️ What Has Changed
- •Defendants may now argue that WCAG is not the definitive standard, citing the DOJ's own position
- •The DOJ is less likely to intervene in Title III cases to enforce WCAG compliance under the current administration
- •Class action settlement structures may face greater DOJ scrutiny, potentially driving more cases to individual resolution
- •The compliance standard debate could become a litigation strategy — adding cost and complexity to every case
The Bottom Line
The DOJ's footnote does not give you permission to ignore web accessibility. It does not reduce your legal exposure. If anything, it increases uncertainty — which means more litigation, not less. Plaintiffs' attorneys will continue filing lawsuits, courts will continue looking to WCAG as the benchmark, and businesses that aren't accessible will continue getting sued.
Why WCAG Is Still Your Best Framework
Despite the DOJ's position, WCAG remains the most defensible, practical, and well-supported standard for web accessibility. Here's why:
Legal Precedent
Hundreds of court decisions have used WCAG as the benchmark for evaluating accessibility claims. One DOJ footnote doesn't erase a decade of case law. Judges who've been applying WCAG for years aren't going to suddenly abandon it — especially without an alternative.
International Adoption
WCAG is the foundation for accessibility laws worldwide: the European Accessibility Act, Canada's Accessible Canada Act, Australia's Disability Discrimination Act, and dozens more. If you operate internationally, WCAG isn't optional — it's mandatory.
Testing Infrastructure
WCAG has mature testing tools (axe-core, WAVE, Pa11y, Lighthouse), established testing methodologies, certified professionals, and documented success criteria. No other standard has this ecosystem. Abandoning WCAG means rebuilding this infrastructure from scratch.
Federal Government Requirement
Section 508 requires WCAG 2.0 AA for all federal government technology. ADA Title II requires WCAG 2.1 AA for state and local government websites. If the government itself uses WCAG, it's hard to argue that WCAG isn't a credible standard for the private sector.
Actual Effectiveness
This is the most important reason: WCAG works. Following WCAG guidelines produces websites that are genuinely usable by people with disabilities. Screen readers work. Keyboard navigation functions. Color contrast is readable. The standard exists because people with disabilities helped create it — and their input makes it effective.
What Could Replace WCAG?
If not WCAG, what? The honest answer is: nothing viable exists today.
WCAG 3.0 (W3C Accessibility Guidelines)
In early development. Proposes a scoring-based model instead of pass/fail, with bronze, silver, and gold conformance levels. Still years from completion — current W3C working drafts estimate a finalization timeline no earlier than 2028-2030.
EN 301 549 (European Standard)
Europe's harmonized standard for ICT accessibility, used by the EAA and EU public procurement. It incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA as its web component — so it's not really a WCAG alternative but a WCAG-plus standard with additional requirements for non-web ICT products.
User-Centered Testing
Some advocates argue for outcome-based testing — judging accessibility by whether actual users with disabilities can accomplish tasks, rather than checking technical criteria. This has merit but is subjective, expensive, and not scalable for the millions of websites that need evaluation. WCAG provides the testable criteria that make compliance measurable.
AI-Powered Adaptive Accessibility
WebAIM recently proposed the concept of "Intelligent Digital Accessibility Assistance" — AI systems that adapt content to individual users' needs in real-time. This is a compelling vision of the future, but it's conceptual and years from practical implementation. It also doesn't address the legal need for a testable compliance standard.
The reality is stark: WCAG is the only comprehensive, testable, internationally recognized web accessibility standard that exists today. The DOJ can decline to endorse it, but until a concrete alternative materializes, businesses have no better option — and courts will continue to reference it.
The Real Compliance Standard: Usability
Here's what the DOJ's footnote may actually be pointing toward — even if unintentionally.
The ADA doesn't say "follow WCAG." It says provide "full and equal enjoyment" of goods and services. The real standard is functional: can people with disabilities use your website to do what everyone else does?
WCAG is a means to that end — an excellent means, but not the end itself. A website can technically pass every WCAG criterion and still be confusing or unusable. Conversely, a thoughtfully designed website might violate some WCAG guidelines but be perfectly usable.
The most defensible accessibility program combines both approaches:
- →WCAG compliance as your technical baseline — it ensures you've addressed the known, testable barriers that affect the most people
- →User testing with people who use assistive technology — it catches the usability issues that automated tools miss
- →Ongoing monitoring to catch regressions — because accessibility isn't a one-time project, it's a continuous process
Think of WCAG as the building code and usability testing as the home inspection. You want both. The DOJ's footnote doesn't change that equation — it just highlights that the building code alone isn't sufficient.
How to Protect Your Business Now
The DOJ's footnote creates uncertainty. Here's how to turn that uncertainty into a strength:
1. Continue Targeting WCAG 2.1 Level AA
It remains the most defensible standard. If challenged, you can demonstrate concrete compliance efforts aligned with the same standard the DOJ itself uses for Title II and Section 508. No judge will penalize you for following WCAG — the DOJ's footnote doesn't change that calculus.
2. Go Beyond Checkbox Compliance
The DOJ's position arguably supports a broader view of accessibility — not just technical conformance, but actual usability. Test with real assistive technology. Ensure your checkout process, forms, and navigation work with screen readers. The goal isn't passing a scan — it's making your website genuinely usable.
3. Implement Continuous Monitoring
With enforcement standards in flux, proactive monitoring is your best insurance. Regular automated scans catch issues before plaintiffs do. Documented remediation timelines demonstrate good faith. This is especially critical given that nearly half of defendants face repeat lawsuits.
4. Document Everything
In a world where the compliance standard is uncertain, documentation becomes your most powerful defense. Keep records of accessibility audits, remediation efforts, policy commitments, and training programs. If you can demonstrate a comprehensive, good-faith accessibility program, you're in a strong position regardless of which standard applies.
5. Don't Fall for Overlays
If the compliance standard is uncertain, a widget that claims to solve everything with one line of JavaScript is more suspect, not less. The FTC's $1 million fine against accessiBe for deceptive compliance claims should be warning enough. Real accessibility requires real work — no shortcut has ever survived legal scrutiny.
Looking Ahead: What to Watch For
The DOJ's footnote may be a one-off position in a specific case, or it may signal a broader shift. Here's what to monitor:
- →The court's ruling in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova — the court heard arguments on February 12, 2026 and a decision is pending. If the judge rejects the settlement citing the DOJ's concerns, it could reshape how class action accessibility settlements are structured.
- →Additional DOJ filings — if the DOJ repeats this position in other cases, it signals an intentional policy shift rather than a case-specific argument.
- →The Title II rule's fate — with compliance deadlines in April 2026, any modifications to the Title II rule would further clarify the administration's position on WCAG.
- →State-level legislation — states like California (SB 84), Utah, and Missouri are passing their own accessibility legislation. These state laws may establish their own technical standards, creating a patchwork that could ultimately force federal clarity.
- →WCAG 3.0 development — the W3C's next-generation standard could address some of WCAG 2.x's limitations. If WCAG 3.0 gains traction, it could become the basis for a future DOJ position or formal rulemaking.
Don't Wait for Clarity — Monitor Your Accessibility Now
While legal standards evolve, accessibility barriers remain real — and so do lawsuits. RatedWithAI provides continuous AI-powered monitoring that catches issues before plaintiffs do, regardless of which standard courts apply.
Scan Your Website Free →Frequently Asked Questions
Did the DOJ say WCAG is not required for ADA compliance?
In a footnote within a February 2026 Statement of Interest, the DOJ stated it 'does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard' for ADA Title III. However, this doesn't mean WCAG is irrelevant — it means the DOJ is not formally adopting WCAG as THE compliance standard for private businesses. Courts continue to use WCAG as their primary benchmark, and no alternative standard exists.
Is WCAG still the best standard for website accessibility?
Yes. WCAG 2.1 Level AA remains the most widely accepted, well-documented, and court-recognized framework for web accessibility. It's required by the DOJ's own Title II rule for government websites, by Section 508 for federal technology, and by accessibility laws in Europe, Canada, Australia, and dozens of other countries. No viable alternative with comparable breadth or testing infrastructure exists.
Why did the DOJ oppose the Fashion Nova settlement?
The DOJ opposed the proposed $5.15 million settlement because: (1) injunctive relief lacked concrete steps to ensure accessibility, (2) monitoring was optional with no enforcement mechanism, (3) attorneys' fees ($2.52M) exceeded what class members received ($2.43M), and (4) the settlement administrator's own website was inaccessible to screen readers. The DOJ's core concern was that the settlement enriched lawyers without actually helping blind users.
Does this DOJ position contradict previous DOJ settlements?
Yes. Legal experts at Seyfarth Shaw noted the position 'seems inconsistent with DOJ's many settlement agreements which adopt WCAG 2.0 AA or 2.1 AA.' For over 15 years, the DOJ required WCAG in settlements with Uber, Rite Aid, H&R Block, Peapod, and others. The footnote may reflect a shift in enforcement philosophy under the current administration.
What should my business do about ADA website accessibility now?
Continue using WCAG 2.1 Level AA as your compliance framework — it remains the most legally defensible approach. Additionally: implement ongoing monitoring, document all accessibility efforts, focus on actual usability beyond checkbox compliance, and avoid accessibility overlay widgets that make unsubstantiated compliance claims.
Does the ADA specify a website accessibility standard?
No. The ADA was enacted in 1990 before the modern web existed and does not specify a technical standard for websites. Title III requires 'full and equal enjoyment' of goods and services but leaves the technical requirements undefined. This ambiguity is precisely why WCAG has served as the de facto standard — courts needed something testable and concrete to evaluate accessibility claims.
Could a different standard replace WCAG for ADA compliance?
In theory, yes — but practically, no viable alternative exists. WCAG 3.0 is in early development (estimated 2028-2030). EN 301 549 incorporates WCAG rather than replacing it. User-centered testing has merit but isn't scalable. The DOJ has not proposed any alternative. Until a concrete replacement materializes, WCAG is the only credible framework.
How does this affect the ADA Title II rule for government websites?
The DOJ's footnote was about Title III (private businesses). The 2024 Title II rule explicitly adopted WCAG 2.1 AA for state and local government websites, with compliance deadlines in April 2026 and April 2027. That rule remains in effect and legally binding. The distinction matters — Title II and Title III have different legal frameworks.