RatedWithAI

RatedWithAI

Accessibility scanner

Free Scan

Industry Analysis

FTC Fined accessiBe $1 Million: Why Accessibility Overlays Failed

Published February 26, 2026 · 15 min read

In August 2024, the Federal Trade Commission took an unprecedented step: it fined accessiBe, the world's largest accessibility overlay company, $1 million for deceptive marketing claims. The FTC determined that accessiBe falsely promised businesses its AI-powered overlay could make their websites "fully accessible and compliant" with ADA and WCAG standards.

It couldn't. And the FTC proved it.

Now, 18 months later, the ripple effects of that fine are reshaping how businesses think about website accessibility. Cox Media TV stations are investigating ADA lawsuits and citing the FTC fine as proof that overlays don't protect businesses. The accessibility widget industry is facing its reckoning. And businesses that relied on accessiBe are scrambling to find solutions that actually work.

This is the full story of the FTC's landmark enforcement action — what accessiBe claimed, what the FTC found, why overlays fail technically, and what your business should do instead.

1. What the FTC Found: The $1 Million Fine

On August 1, 2024, the FTC announced a consent order requiring accessiBe Ltd. — an Israel-based company — to pay $1 million and fundamentally change how it markets its products. The FTC's complaint centered on several findings:

  • False compliance claims: accessiBe told customers its overlay product could make websites "fully accessible and compliant" with ADA and WCAG 2.1 standards. The FTC found this was not true.
  • Deceptive litigation protection: accessiBe marketed "litigation support packages" suggesting businesses using its product would be protected from ADA lawsuits. They weren't — businesses using accessiBe continued to be sued.
  • Misleading "AI-powered" capabilities: The company claimed its AI could detect and fix accessibility issues automatically within 48 hours. The FTC found the technology could not deliver on these promises.
  • Suppressed negative feedback: accessiBe pressured customers to remove negative reviews and ratings, manipulating public perception of its product's effectiveness.

The consent order required accessiBe to stop making unsubstantiated compliance claims, stop pressuring customers about reviews, and pay the $1 million penalty. It marked the first time a federal agency had formally determined that an accessibility overlay product's compliance claims were deceptive.

2. The Deceptive Claims That Triggered the FTC

Before the FTC action, accessiBe aggressively marketed itself as a quick, affordable solution to ADA compliance. Their claims included:

Claims the FTC Found Deceptive

  • ✕"Make your website ADA & WCAG compliant within 48 hours"— The FTC found that overlays cannot achieve full compliance with either standard, regardless of timeframe.
  • ✕"AI-powered technology that fixes accessibility issues automatically"— While the AI could identify some surface-level issues, it could not fix fundamental accessibility barriers in source code.
  • ✕"Litigation support that protects you from ADA lawsuits"— Businesses using accessiBe continued to be named in ADA lawsuits, and courts did not accept overlay installation as a compliance defense.
  • ✕"Guaranteed WCAG 2.1 AA compliance"— Independent testing consistently showed that websites using accessiBe still had numerous WCAG violations. The overlay's automated repairs addressed only a fraction of the 87 WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria.

accessiBe had been the subject of criticism from accessibility professionals for years before the FTC acted. But the company continued its marketing campaign, spending heavily on SEO, affiliate programs, and targeted ads to small business owners who didn't know enough about accessibility to evaluate the claims.

3. How Accessibility Overlays Actually Work (and Don't)

To understand why the FTC found accessiBe's claims deceptive, you need to understand what accessibility overlays are and how they operate:

What overlays do:

Overlays inject a JavaScript widget onto your website that runs in the visitor's browser. This widget attempts two things: (1) it presents a toolbar with controls for font size, contrast, and cursor options, and (2) it tries to automatically detect and repair accessibility issues in the page's rendered HTML.

Where they fail:

Overlays operate on the front-end of your website — the rendered page in the browser. They cannot modify your website's source code, server-side logic, database content, or build process. This is a fundamental architectural limitation that no amount of AI can overcome. WCAG compliance requires changes at the code level that overlays simply cannot reach.

The widget illusion:

The overlay widget (the accessibility icon that appears on the page) offers features like "increase font size" and "high contrast mode." But as the Overlay Fact Sheet explains, users who actually need these features already have them built into their operating system or assistive technology. The widget duplicates existing functionality while failing to address the real barriers.

Think of it this way: if your building has no wheelchair ramp, putting a sign on the door that says "We support wheelchair users" doesn't fix the problem. That's essentially what overlays do — they add a cosmetic layer while leaving the structural barriers untouched.

4. The Technical Failures: What Overlays Can't Fix

WCAG 2.1 Level AA contains 50 success criteria. Overlays can partially address approximately 10–15 of them. Here's what they fundamentally cannot fix:

❌ Image alt text (WCAG 1.1.1)

Overlays attempt to auto-generate alt text using AI image recognition. The results are unreliable — a photo of employees at a company event might get alt text like "group of people standing" instead of meaningful context about who they are and what they're doing. Automated alt text fails for charts, infographics, logos, decorative images, and any image requiring human context.

❌ Form labels and error handling (WCAG 1.3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2)

When form fields aren't properly labeled in the source code, overlays try to guess the relationship between labels and inputs. This frequently fails for complex forms, multi-step wizards, and dynamically generated fields. Error messages, validation states, and input instructions require semantic HTML that overlays cannot inject.

❌ Keyboard navigation (WCAG 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.4.3)

If interactive elements (menus, modals, custom dropdowns) are built without keyboard support, overlays cannot retroactively add it. Keyboard traps, missing focus indicators, and illogical tab order require structural code changes.

❌ Dynamic content and SPAs (WCAG 4.1.2, 4.1.3)

Modern websites built with React, Angular, or Vue constantly update the page without full reloads. Overlays run once when the page loads and cannot keep up with dynamic state changes. ARIA live regions, role attributes, and state announcements must be built into the component architecture.

❌ Video captions and audio descriptions (WCAG 1.2.x)

Overlays cannot add captions to embedded videos, provide audio descriptions, or create transcripts. Media accessibility requires human-authored content that no overlay can generate.

❌ Document structure and headings (WCAG 1.3.1, 2.4.6)

Proper heading hierarchy, landmark regions, and semantic structure must be built into the HTML. Overlays cannot restructure a page's DOM to create proper heading levels or add missing landmark roles without risking layout breakage.

This isn't a matter of the technology not being sophisticated enough yet. It's an architectural impossibility. Overlays sit on top of your website; WCAG compliance requires changes inside your website. That gap is permanent.

5. 800+ Experts Agree: Overlays Don't Work

The FTC's action didn't happen in a vacuum. The accessibility community had been sounding the alarm for years:

  • The Overlay Fact Sheet (overlayfactsheet.com) — Signed by over 800 accessibility professionals, developers, researchers, and disability advocates. It documents overlay limitations, privacy concerns, and recommends against their use.
  • The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) — Issued a formal position opposing accessiBe specifically, calling the product's marketing "dishonest and harmful."
  • WebAIM — The leading web accessibility research organization has consistently warned that overlays cannot achieve WCAG compliance.
  • Adrian Roselli — One of the most prominent accessibility advocates has documented overlay failures extensively, including screen reader testing that shows overlays making accessibility worse on some sites.
  • Deque Systems — The creators of axe-core (the most widely used accessibility testing engine, with over 3 billion downloads) have documented that overlays fail to fix issues their scanner detects.
  • W3C Web Accessibility Initiative — While not naming specific products, the W3C has stated that conformance requires changes to the content itself, not third-party scripts applied after the fact.

The FTC's $1 million fine validated what these experts had been saying for years: overlays don't deliver what they promise. The difference is that now it's not just expert opinion — it's a federal enforcement action.

6. Overlays as Lawsuit Evidence Against You

Perhaps the most damaging finding in the overlay story: businesses that installed overlays didn't just fail to prevent lawsuits — the overlay became evidence against them.

How Overlays Hurt Your Legal Position

  • 1.Acknowledgment of barriers: Installing an overlay shows you knew your website had accessibility issues. Plaintiffs use this to argue the business was aware of the problem but chose a cheap shortcut over genuine remediation.
  • 2.No good-faith defense: Under state right-to-cure laws, businesses can demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts. After the FTC fine, an overlay is hard to defend as "good-faith" — the federal government has determined the product doesn't work as claimed.
  • 3.Persistent violations: Plaintiffs scan websites with tools like axe-core (the same engine RatedWithAI uses) and document violations that exist despite the overlay being installed. This shows the overlay failed to fix the specific issues cited in the complaint.
  • 4.FTC precedent: Defense attorneys can now point to the FTC consent order to argue that relying on an overlay was unreasonable. "The federal government fined this product for deceptive compliance claims — and you chose to rely on it anyway."

In the Fashion Nova settlement case, the DOJ rejected a $5.15 million settlement because it didn't include ongoing monitoring. Courts are increasingly looking for evidence of continuous compliance efforts — not one-time installations of products that don't work.

7. Cox TV Investigations: The FTC Fine Goes Mainstream

In early 2026, Cox Media Group TV stations across at least 7 markets — including Jacksonville, Orlando, and others — launched investigative reports on ADA website lawsuits targeting small businesses. This is where the FTC accessiBe fine enters mainstream consciousness.

For the first time, major television investigations are drawing a direct line between:

  • Small businesses being sued for ADA website violations
  • Overlay companies promising compliance they can't deliver
  • The FTC's $1 million fine proving those promises were deceptive
  • Serial plaintiffs (like the 40% surge in pro se filings) exploiting businesses that thought they were protected

In Florida alone, attorney Aleksandra Kravets has filed over 200 ADA lawsuits, and serial plaintiff Jonathan Drummond has targeted businesses in Jacksonville and Orlando. Small businesses that relied on overlays are learning — often through a lawsuit — that the $490/year they spent on accessiBe bought them nothing.

The Cox investigations are creating a ripple effect: business owners who see the TV coverage search for "accessiBe FTC fine" and "accessibility overlay alternatives." They're looking for solutions that actually work. And that's where code-level accessibility testing comes in.

8. The National Federation of the Blind's Position

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) — the largest organization of blind Americans — has been uniquely vocal in its opposition to accessiBe. In their formal statement, the NFB noted:

"The biggest irony of accessiBe is that the suite of 'enhancements' that the widget provides is designed for, but not by, disabled people. [...] The promise of a quick and cheap solution to digital accessibility is not only unfulfilled, it is harmful."

The NFB's opposition is significant because it comes from the people overlays claim to help. Blind and low-vision users who test websites with screen readers consistently report that overlays interfere with their existing assistive technology — sometimes making sites less accessible than they were without the overlay.

Key issues blind users report with overlays:

  • Overlays detect screen readers and automatically modify the page, changing the experience without consent
  • The overlay widget itself is often inaccessible — keyboard users can't navigate it
  • Auto-generated ARIA attributes conflict with attributes already present, confusing screen readers
  • The overlay slows page load times, which disproportionately affects users on assistive technology
  • Privacy concern: detecting assistive technology use exposes disability status without consent, potentially violating GDPR and CCPA

9. The Overlay Industry: accessiBe, UserWay, and Others

accessiBe isn't the only overlay company — it's just the first one the FTC fined. The overlay industry includes dozens of products:

accessiBe

The largest overlay company. Founded in Israel, raised $58M+ in funding. Marketing-heavy, aggressive affiliate programs. Now subject to the FTC consent order. Plans start at $490/year.

UserWay

Second-largest overlay provider. Similar widget-based approach. Has been named in lawsuits alongside clients. Plans start at $490/year for AI-powered features.

AudioEye

Publicly traded (AEYE). Combines automated overlay with human review services. More nuanced than pure overlays, but the automated component has similar limitations. Plans start at $49/month.

EqualWeb, MaxAccess, Recite Me, and others

Smaller overlay products with similar technical approaches and limitations. The Overlay Fact Sheet lists over 30 overlay products — all sharing the same fundamental technical constraints.

While the FTC has only fined accessiBe so far, the consent order sets a precedent. Any overlay company making similar compliance claims is now operating under significantly increased regulatory risk. The FTC has demonstrated it considers false accessibility compliance claims to be deceptive trade practices.

10. Code-Level Scanning: What Actually Works

If overlays don't work, what does? The answer is the same one accessibility professionals have given for decades: fix the issues in your actual code.

Code-level accessibility tools take a fundamentally different approach than overlays:

Overlay approach

  • • Adds JavaScript to the browser
  • • Tries to mask issues at runtime
  • • Can't access source code
  • • Breaks with page updates
  • • FTC found claims deceptive
  • • May harm assistive technology
  • • Creates false sense of compliance
  • • ~$490–$1,800/year

Code-level scanning

  • • Scans against WCAG criteria
  • • Reports specific violations
  • • Points to exact code locations
  • • Provides fix instructions
  • • Documents compliance efforts
  • • Works with assistive technology
  • • Creates audit trail for legal defense
  • • $29/month with RatedWithAI

RatedWithAI uses axe-core — the same accessibility testing engine used by Deque, Microsoft, Google, and adopted by the W3C. It scans your actual website content against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 criteria and produces a detailed report of every violation with:

  • The specific WCAG criterion violated
  • The HTML element causing the violation
  • A description of why it fails
  • Actionable steps to fix it
  • Impact level (critical, serious, moderate, minor)

This gives you a roadmap to actually fix your accessibility issues — not mask them with an overlay that the FTC says doesn't work.

11. How to Migrate Away from an Overlay

If your business currently uses an overlay, here's a step-by-step guide to transition to genuine compliance:

1

Run a baseline accessibility scan

Use RatedWithAI's free scanner to see your current accessibility score and violations with the overlay installed. This documents how many issues the overlay is failing to fix.

2

Remove the overlay script

Remove the overlay JavaScript from your site. This is typically a single script tag in your site header. Don't worry — if the overlay was doing nothing meaningful, your accessibility won't change.

3

Scan again without the overlay

Run another scan to see your true baseline. Compare with the first scan to see how much the overlay was actually fixing (typically very little).

4

Prioritize critical and serious violations

Focus on the violations most likely to trigger lawsuits and most impactful for users: missing alt text, poor color contrast, missing form labels, keyboard traps. These are the issues flagged in 90% of ADA lawsuits.

5

Set up ongoing monitoring

Accessibility isn't a one-time fix. Content changes, design updates, and new features can introduce new violations. Set up regular scanning with RatedWithAI's monitoring plans starting at $29/month — less than what most overlays charge.

6

Document everything

Keep records of your scans, the issues found, the fixes applied, and your ongoing monitoring schedule. This documentation is your strongest defense under right-to-cure laws and demonstrates good-faith compliance efforts to courts.

12. Cost Comparison: Overlays vs. Real Compliance

One of the reasons overlays gained traction is that they appeared to be affordable. But when you factor in the total cost — including the lawsuits overlays fail to prevent — the math is devastating:

The overlay path (total cost)

  • $490–$1,800/year — Overlay subscription (varies by plan and site size)
  • $0 — Actual WCAG issues fixed (overlay masks, doesn't fix)
  • $5,000–$75,000 — Average ADA lawsuit settlement when you inevitably get sued
  • $10,000–$25,000 — Legal defense costs (even if you settle quickly)
  • Total: $15,490–$101,800+ per incident

The code-level compliance path

  • $348/year — RatedWithAI monitoring ($29/month)
  • $500–$3,000 — Initial remediation of critical issues (one-time, developer time)
  • $0–$250/year — Ongoing fixes for new violations (minimal if monitored)
  • Up to $5,000 — IRS Disabled Access Credit (Form 8826) tax savings for eligible businesses
  • Total: $348–$3,598/year (potentially $0 after tax credit)

The overlay appears cheaper until you get sued. And with ADA lawsuits up 40% in 2025 and AI-powered pro se filings making it cheaper than ever to sue, the question isn't if non-compliant sites get targeted — it's when.

Stop Paying for an Overlay. Start Fixing Real Issues.

RatedWithAI scans your website against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 using axe-core — the same engine trusted by Microsoft, Google, and the W3C. Get your free accessibility score in 60 seconds.

Scan Your Website Free →View Monitoring Plans

13. Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the FTC fine accessiBe $1 million?

The FTC fined accessiBe for deceptive marketing claims. The company told customers its AI overlay could make websites "fully accessible and compliant" with ADA and WCAG standards. The FTC determined this was false — the overlay could not deliver the compliance it promised. The consent order requires accessiBe to stop making unsubstantiated claims and pay $1 million.

Do accessibility overlays make websites ADA compliant?

No. The FTC, over 800 accessibility professionals (via the Overlay Fact Sheet), the National Federation of the Blind, and multiple court rulings all confirm that overlays cannot achieve full ADA or WCAG compliance. Overlays operate on the browser layer and cannot fix issues in the source code where accessibility barriers originate.

Can I still be sued if I use an overlay?

Yes. Multiple businesses using accessiBe and other overlays have been sued for ADA violations. In some cases, having an overlay installed has been used as evidence against the business — showing awareness of accessibility issues without genuine remediation.

What should I use instead of an accessibility overlay?

Use code-level accessibility testing tools that identify violations in your source code and provide actionable fix instructions. RatedWithAI scans against WCAG 2.1/2.2 using axe-core and reports specific violations with remediation steps. Combined with developer fixes and manual testing, this approach addresses root causes rather than masking symptoms.

How much does it cost to switch from an overlay to real compliance?

RatedWithAI's monitoring starts at $29/month ($348/year) — less than most overlay subscriptions. Initial remediation of critical code issues typically costs $500–$3,000 in developer time, depending on your site's complexity. Eligible small businesses can offset costs with the IRS Disabled Access Credit (up to $5,000/year).

How are Cox TV investigations related to the FTC accessiBe fine?

Cox Media Group TV stations in 7+ markets are investigating ADA website lawsuits targeting small businesses. These investigations cite the FTC's $1M fine against accessiBe as evidence that overlay solutions don't work — the first time mainstream TV media has connected overlay failures to federal enforcement. This is creating public awareness that overlays don't protect businesses from lawsuits.

How much does accessiBe cost compared to code-level tools?

accessiBe starts at $490/year for small sites. RatedWithAI starts at $348/year ($29/month). The critical difference: accessiBe's overlay tries to mask issues in the browser (which the FTC found doesn't work), while RatedWithAI identifies actual WCAG violations in your code so you can fix them at the source.

What did the FTC specifically find about accessiBe's claims?

The FTC found that accessiBe made false claims including: its product could make websites "fully accessible and compliant" with ADA/WCAG; it provided "litigation support" protecting against lawsuits; its AI fixed issues within 48 hours. The FTC determined all of these claims were deceptive, and that accessiBe pressured customers to remove negative reviews.

Sources

  • Federal Trade Commission — accessiBe Consent Order (August 2024) ftc.gov
  • Overlay Fact Sheet — Signed by 800+ accessibility professionals overlayfactsheet.com
  • National Federation of the Blind — Position on accessiBe (2021) nfb.org
  • Seyfarth Shaw — ADA Title III Lawsuit Statistics 2025 seyfarth.com
  • W3C Web Accessibility Initiative — Understanding Conformance w3.org
  • Deque Systems — axe-core and Accessibility Testing Resources deque.com
  • Cox Media Group — ADA Lawsuit Investigative Reports (2026)
  • Adrian Roselli — Accessibility Overlay Testing and Documentation adrianroselli.com

Related Articles

Deep Dive

Accessibility Widgets: Do They Actually Work?

Product Review

accessiBe Review 2026: After the FTC Fine

Data Analysis

ADA Lawsuits Up 40%: AI-Powered Pro Se Filings

Legal Analysis

Fashion Nova Settlement Rejected by DOJ

Legislative Update

Utah & Missouri Anti-ADA Lawsuit Bills 2026

Tax Guide

IRS Form 8826: $5,000 Tax Credit for Accessibility

Technical Guide

How to Fix Common WCAG Failures

Software Roundup

Best ADA Compliance Software 2026