15 Reasons Courts Reject Accessibility Overlays [With Cases]

Courts consistently reject accessibility overlay installation as evidence of ADA compliance. Over 800 businesses using overlays were sued in 2023-2024. The FTC fined AccessiBe $1 million for false compliance claims. Settlement agreements routinely require overlay removal.

This analysis documents 15 specific reasons—with legal, technical, and expert evidence—why courts reject overlays as compliance solutions.

Key Statistics

The evidence against overlays is comprehensive and documented.

• 800+ overlay users sued in 2023-2024 (TestParty Research/Court Listener)
• $1 million FTC fine against AccessiBe for deceptive claims
• 700+ accessibility professionals signed opposition (Overlay Fact Sheet)
• 25%+ of lawsuits targeted overlay users
• <1% of TestParty customers sued using source code remediation
• Multiple court rulings reject overlay installation as compliance evidence

Reasons 1-5: Technical Failures

Courts reject overlays because they don't work technically. These fundamental limitations are documented in expert testimony.

1. Screen Readers Parse Source Code Before Overlays Execute

The Evidence: When assistive technologies like JAWS, NVDA, or VoiceOver visit a webpage, they parse the HTML source code immediately upon page load. They build an accessibility tree—a structured representation of page elements—from this source code.

Overlay JavaScript runs after page load. By the time it executes, screen readers have already built their understanding of the page.

Legal Implication: Expert testimony in accessibility cases documents this timing mismatch. When plaintiffs' experts test with screen readers, they encounter the original source code violations—not overlay modifications.

Source: W3C Web Accessibility Initiative documentation on how assistive technologies interact with web content.

2. Overlays Cannot Fix Form Label Associations

The Evidence: WCAG requires form fields to have programmatically associated labels via proper HTML structure:

<label for="email">Email address</label>
<input type="email" id="email">

Overlays can only inject `aria-label` via JavaScript—this doesn't create the proper association screen readers need and doesn't provide visible labels for users with cognitive disabilities.

Legal Implication: Form accessibility is among the most common WCAG violations cited in lawsuits. Overlay "fixes" don't resolve the underlying violation.

3. Overlays Cannot Fix Semantic Structure

The Evidence: WCAG requires proper heading hierarchy—one H1, followed by H2s for main sections, H3s for subsections. Overlays cannot restructure your HTML. They can't convert a `<div class="heading">` into a proper `<h2>` element.

Legal Implication: Structural violations affect how screen reader users navigate pages. These issues remain in source code regardless of overlay installation.

4. Overlays Cannot Fix Keyboard Navigation

The Evidence: WCAG requires all functionality to be operable via keyboard. If a modal doesn't trap focus correctly, or a custom dropdown isn't keyboard accessible, overlays cannot rewrite the JavaScript that controls these behaviors.

Legal Implication: Keyboard accessibility is testable and demonstrable in court. When expert testing shows continued keyboard failures, overlay installation is irrelevant.

5. DOM Modifications Don't Reliably Transfer to Accessibility Trees

The Evidence: Overlays modify the Document Object Model (DOM)—the browser's representation of the page. However, changes to the DOM don't always propagate correctly to the accessibility tree that assistive technologies use.

Legal Implication: Even if timing weren't an issue, the modifications may not work as intended. Expert testing documents when accessibility tree issues persist despite overlay presence.

Reasons 6-10: Legal and Regulatory Evidence

Courts and regulators have directly addressed overlay limitations through enforcement actions and rulings.

6. FTC Found AccessiBe Claims "Not Supported by Competent and Reliable Evidence"

The Evidence: In April 2025, the Federal Trade Commission fined AccessiBe $1 million for making false claims about their product's compliance capabilities.

The FTC explicitly found that AccessiBe's marketing claims about achieving WCAG and ADA compliance "were not supported by competent and reliable evidence."

Legal Implication: The FTC action establishes regulatory precedent that overlay compliance claims are deceptive. This affects how courts evaluate similar claims from any overlay vendor.

7. Courts Evaluate Actual Accessibility, Not Installed Software

The Evidence: ADA accessibility cases are decided based on whether websites are actually accessible to people with disabilities—not based on what software is installed.

When plaintiff experts test with screen readers and document continued barriers, the existence of an overlay is irrelevant to the accessibility evaluation.

Legal Implication: Good faith efforts to achieve compliance matter, but installing software that doesn't work doesn't constitute good faith—it constitutes reliance on ineffective technology.

8. Settlements Routinely Require Overlay Removal

The Evidence: Accessibility lawsuit settlements frequently require defendants to remove overlay widgets and engage in actual source code remediation.

Levain Bakery's settlement specifically required human auditors. VP of Technology Gustavo Cardona noted: "As part of our settlement, we have to retain human auditors. The solution? For me to remove AccessiBe is better, truthfully."

Legal Implication: If overlays achieved compliance, settlements wouldn't require their removal. The legal process itself recognizes overlay failure.

9. Expert Witness Testimony Documents Overlay Failures

The Evidence: Accessibility experts serving as witnesses in ADA cases consistently testify that overlays don't fix underlying accessibility issues. These experts test websites with assistive technologies and document continued barriers.

Legal Implication: Expert testimony is foundational to accessibility cases. When experts consistently document overlay failures, courts have clear technical evidence.

10. 800+ Overlay Users Were Sued Despite Installation

The Evidence: TestParty research based on Court Listener data found over 800 businesses using overlay widgets were sued in 2023-2024. This represents more than 25% of all digital accessibility lawsuits during that period.

Legal Implication: The statistical evidence is clear: overlay installation provides no protection from lawsuits. If overlays worked as compliance solutions, their users wouldn't be sued at these rates.

Reasons 11-15: Professional and Advocacy Opposition

The accessibility community—including the largest organization of blind people—formally opposes overlays.

11. National Federation of the Blind Formal Resolution Against Overlays

The Evidence: The NFB's 2021 resolution stated that AccessiBe and similar overlays "currently engages in behavior that is harmful to the advancement of blind people in society."

The resolution noted overlay providers "make misleading, unproven, and unethical claims which falsely inflate the value and effectiveness of their technology."

Legal Implication: The NFB is the largest organization of blind people in the United States. Their formal opposition provides authoritative evidence that the technology marketed to help blind users is opposed by blind users themselves.

12. NFB States Overlays "May Actually Make Navigation More Difficult"

The Evidence: The same NFB resolution noted that overlays "may actually make navigation more difficult" for users with disabilities.

The tools marketed as accessibility solutions may actively harm the users they claim to help.

Legal Implication: When the technology makes things worse for disabled users, courts can't accept it as evidence of compliance efforts.

13. 700+ Accessibility Professionals Signed Opposition Statement

The Evidence: Over 700 accessibility professionals signed the Overlay Fact Sheet opposing overlay products.

Signatories include accessibility experts from Google, Microsoft, Apple, Shopify, BBC, eBay, Target, CVS Health, Dell, and Lyft. Academic signatories come from MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Syracuse, and Gallaudet University.

Legal Implication: This represents professional consensus from the people who understand accessibility best. The statement that overlays "do not repair the underlying problems with inaccessible websites" reflects expert opinion.

14. Disability Rights Attorneys Document Overlay Failures

The Evidence: Prominent disability rights attorneys, including Lainey Feingold, have documented overlay failures extensively. Legal practitioners representing plaintiffs in accessibility cases know overlays don't work—and exploit this knowledge.

Legal Implication: When plaintiff attorneys specifically target overlay users knowing the technology is ineffective, overlay installation becomes a liability marker rather than protection.

15. Court-Appointed Monitors Require Source Code Fixes

The Evidence: In cases with ongoing court oversight, monitors require actual source code remediation—not overlay installation. Courts that maintain jurisdiction over accessibility compliance don't accept overlays as resolution.

Legal Implication: Judicial oversight confirms that genuine compliance requires source code fixes. Overlays are insufficient for court-mandated accessibility programs.

What Courts Accept Instead

Courts accept evidence of genuine accessibility through source code remediation.

Source Code Remediation

When actual code fixes are implemented—proper form labels, semantic structure, keyboard navigation—courts can verify accessibility through expert testing. The fixes exist in source code, screen readers encounter them correctly, and continued compliance is demonstrable.

TestParty's Track Record

<1% of TestParty customers have been sued while using the platform. This represents over 250 months of collective customer engagement across e-commerce brands.

The difference: TestParty fixes actual source code. Screen readers encounter genuinely accessible HTML. There are no violations to sue over because the violations are fixed.

Implementation Timeline

Most businesses achieve WCAG 2.2 AA compliance in 14-30 days with source code remediation. Cozy Earth fixed 8,000+ issues in 2 weeks. TUSHY achieved compliance in 30 days.

Summary: The Complete Case Against Overlays

+------------------+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|     Category     |                    Key Reasons                     |                  Evidence                 |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|    Technical     | Screen readers parse source code before overlays run; overlays can't fix form labels, structure, or navigation |    W3C documentation, expert testimony    |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|    Regulatory    | FTC $1M fine; claims "not supported by competent and reliable evidence" |           FTC enforcement action          |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|      Legal       | 800+ users sued; settlements require removal; courts evaluate actual accessibility |   Court Listener data, settlement terms   |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|   Professional   | NFB opposition; 700+ experts signed against; overlays may make navigation harder |     NFB resolution, Overlay Fact Sheet    |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Frequently Asked Questions

Have courts specifically ruled against accessibility overlays?

Courts have rejected overlay installation as evidence of ADA compliance in multiple rulings. Defendants argued their overlay demonstrated good faith compliance efforts. Courts found that installing software claiming to fix accessibility doesn't constitute actual accessibility when expert testing shows continued barriers.

Why does the FTC fine matter for court cases?

The FTC found AccessiBe's compliance claims "were not supported by competent and reliable evidence." This establishes regulatory precedent that overlay technology doesn't achieve what vendors claim. Courts can reference this finding when evaluating overlay-based defenses.

Why do settlements require overlay removal?

Settlements require source code remediation because overlays don't fix underlying issues. If overlays achieved compliance, settlements would allow their continued use. The consistent requirement to remove overlays confirms legal recognition that they don't work.

What evidence do courts accept for accessibility compliance?

Courts accept evidence of actual accessibility: expert testing showing screen reader compatibility, keyboard navigation functionality, and WCAG success criteria compliance. This requires source code fixes—not JavaScript injection that screen readers don't encounter correctly.

Why is professional opposition relevant to legal cases?

The NFB's formal resolution and the 700+ professionals who signed the Overlay Fact Sheet provide authoritative evidence about overlay effectiveness. Expert witnesses can reference this professional consensus when testifying about why overlays don't achieve compliance.

How does source code remediation differ legally?

Source code remediation fixes actual HTML that screen readers parse. Expert testing can verify compliance because the accessibility exists in source code. <1% of TestParty customers have been sued because their websites are genuinely accessible—not dependent on JavaScript that runs too late.

Related Resources

For more information on overlay legal issues:

• Accessibility Widget Lawsuits: The Truth — Lawsuit documentation
• The Death of Accessibility Overlays — Industry analysis
• ADA Lawsuit Defense: Source Code Approach — Legal protection strategy
• Source Code vs Overlays: Technical Comparison — Technical analysis
• Best Alternative to Overlay Widgets — Alternatives guide

Humans + AI = this article. Like all TestParty blog posts, we believe the best content comes from combining human expertise with AI capabilities. This content is for educational purposes only—every business is different. Please do your own research and contact accessibility vendors to evaluate what works best for you.