The Complete Guide to Overlay Alternatives for Accessibility

Accessibility overlays don't work. Over 800 businesses using overlays were sued in 2023-2024. The FTC fined AccessiBe $1 million for false compliance claims. Courts reject overlay installation as evidence of ADA compliance. This guide covers every alternative approach for achieving genuine accessibility compliance.

Whether you're currently using an overlay and need to switch, evaluating options after receiving a lawsuit, or starting fresh with accessibility, this comprehensive guide explains what actually works—and why.

Why Overlays Don't Work

Understanding why overlays fail helps identify what alternatives must do differently.

The Technical Failure

Overlays inject JavaScript that runs after your page loads. Screen readers parse your HTML source code when the page loads—before overlay JavaScript executes.

This timing mismatch is fundamental. When a blind user visits your site with a screen reader, the assistive technology builds its understanding of your page from your actual HTML. By the time overlay JavaScript attempts modifications, screen readers have already moved on.

What Overlays Cannot Fix

Certain accessibility requirements need source code changes that JavaScript injection cannot provide.

Form label associations require proper HTML structure. Overlays inject `aria-label` via JavaScript—this doesn't create the programmatic association screen readers need, doesn't provide visible labels for cognitive disabilities, and may not be processed if JavaScript fails.

Semantic structure requires template changes. Overlays cannot convert `<div class="heading">` into proper heading elements or fix your heading hierarchy.

Keyboard navigation requires actual code changes to event handlers and focus management. Overlays cannot rewrite your component behavior.

Color contrast cannot be reliably fixed by JavaScript CSS modifications that may conflict with existing styles.

The Marketing vs Reality Gap

Overlay vendors claim:

• "Instant compliance"
• "AI-powered accessibility"
• "ADA protection"
• "No code changes needed"

Reality:

• Over 800 users sued in 2023-2024
• FTC found claims "not supported by competent and reliable evidence"
• Courts reject overlay installation as compliance evidence
• The NFB formally opposes overlay products

The Evidence Against Overlays

The case against overlays is documented across legal, regulatory, and expert sources.

Lawsuit Data

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.

Having an overlay installed provided no legal protection. Plaintiff attorneys can test sites with screen readers and document the barriers that remain in source code—barriers overlays don't fix.

FTC Enforcement

The Federal Trade Commission fined AccessiBe $1 million in April 2025 for making "false, misleading, or unsubstantiated" claims about their product's ability to achieve WCAG and ADA compliance.

The FTC specifically found that AccessiBe's marketing claims "were not supported by competent and reliable evidence."

Court Rulings

Courts have rejected overlay installation as evidence of ADA compliance in multiple rulings. Defendants who argued their overlay demonstrated good faith compliance were still found liable.

Settlements routinely require overlay removal and source code remediation. Courts recognize that overlays don't achieve actual accessibility.

Expert Opposition

The National Federation of the Blind's 2021 resolution stated overlay providers "make misleading, unproven, and unethical claims" and that overlays "may actually make navigation more difficult."

Over 700 accessibility professionals signed the Overlay Fact Sheet opposing overlay products, including experts from Google, Microsoft, Apple, Shopify, BBC, eBay, Target, and CVS Health.

Alternative Approach: Source Code Remediation

Source code remediation fixes actual accessibility issues in your HTML, CSS, and JavaScript files.

How It Works

Automated scanning identifies WCAG violations across your entire website. Daily scans catch issues at scale—thousands of pages tested against all success criteria.

Expert analysis reviews findings with context. Accessibility professionals understand which fixes will have the most impact and how to implement them correctly.

Code fix delivery provides actual changes to your source files. Fixes arrive via GitHub pull requests—real modifications you can review and merge.

Continuous monitoring catches new issues from content updates, product changes, and site modifications.

TestParty: Leading Source Code Remediation

TestParty is the leading source code remediation platform for e-commerce and Shopify businesses.

Spotlight scans your entire site daily, identifying WCAG 2.2 AA violations.

Bouncer integrates with CI/CD to prevent accessibility regressions during development.

Expert remediation delivers actual code fixes via GitHub PRs.

Monthly audits provide screen reader and keyboard testing beyond automation.

Results: <1% of TestParty customers have been sued while using the platform—over 250 months of collective customer engagement. Most businesses achieve compliance in 14-30 days.

Best For

Source code remediation is ideal for:

• E-commerce and Shopify businesses
• Companies wanting genuine WCAG compliance
• Businesses needing lawsuit protection
• Organizations without internal accessibility expertise
• Companies that need compliance quickly (14-30 days)

Limitations

• Higher monthly cost than overlays ($1,000-$5,000)
• Requires GitHub integration
• Code changes require review and merge (though minimal time)

Alternative Approach: Traditional Audits

Traditional accessibility audits provide comprehensive manual assessment of your website.

How It Works

Expert evaluation tests your site manually with assistive technologies. Auditors navigate with screen readers, test keyboard functionality, and evaluate cognitive accessibility.

Violation documentation maps issues to specific WCAG success criteria. Reports include locations, severity, and recommended fixes.

Implementation guidance explains how to fix each issue. Technical documentation supports your development team.

Repeat engagement assesses fixes and identifies new issues over time.

Pros

• Thorough human evaluation
• Catches issues automation misses
• Detailed technical documentation
• Respected methodology

Cons

• No actual fixes included—you implement
• Expensive ($10,000-$50,000+ per audit)
• Long timeline (3-6 months including implementation)
• Point-in-time assessment requires re-engagement
• Requires internal development resources

Best For

Traditional audits work best for:

• Organizations with substantial accessibility development expertise
• Large enterprises with internal implementation teams
• Companies preferring to manage fixes internally
• Situations requiring detailed compliance documentation

Alternative Approach: DIY Implementation

If you have internal accessibility expertise, you can implement fixes yourself.

What's Required

Accessibility expertise: Understanding WCAG 2.2 success criteria and how to implement fixes correctly. This is specialized knowledge.

Development resources: Time to implement changes—typically 40-200+ hours depending on site complexity and issue count.

Testing capabilities: Access to screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver) and ability to conduct keyboard navigation testing.

Ongoing commitment: Accessibility isn't one-time. Content updates and site changes introduce new issues requiring continuous attention.

Implementation Tools

Several free tools support DIY implementation:

WAVE browser extension: Identifies violations on individual pages.

axe DevTools: Chrome extension for developer-focused testing.

Lighthouse: Built into Chrome DevTools for accessibility audits.

NVDA: Free screen reader for Windows testing.

Limitations: Automated tools catch only 30-50% of WCAG violations. Manual testing with assistive technologies is required for complete assessment.

Pros

• No subscription costs
• Full control over implementation
• Develops internal expertise

Cons

• Requires specialized expertise (rare)
• Significant time investment (40-200+ hours)
• Automated tools miss 50%+ of issues
• Easy to implement fixes incorrectly
• No ongoing monitoring without continuous effort
• No lawsuit track record data

Best For

DIY works for:

• Organizations with CPACC/IAAP-certified accessibility developers
• Small sites with limited complexity
• Companies with dedicated accessibility teams
• Technical teams willing to invest in learning

Alternative Approach: Hybrid Services

Some vendors combine overlay technology with human services.

How They Work

Overlay component provides automated detection and DOM modifications (with the same limitations as pure overlays).

Service component may include manual audits, partial code fixes, or consulting depending on service level.

Considerations

Effectiveness depends on the ratio of actual code remediation to overlay reliance.

Questions to ask:

• What percentage of fixes are actual source code changes?
• What percentage rely on overlay JavaScript?
• What's the lawsuit track record for customers?

If the majority of "fixes" come from the overlay component, the fundamental limitations remain.

Vendors

AudioEye is the most prominent hybrid vendor, offering overlay technology plus human services at higher plan levels.

Best For

Consider hybrid only if:

• The plan emphasizes actual code fixes
• The vendor provides clear lawsuit track record data
• You understand what percentage is overlay vs remediation

Comparison: All Overlay Alternatives

+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|         Factor         |     Source Code Remediation     |       Traditional Audits      |           DIY            |         Hybrid         |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|   Fixes actual code    |               Yes               |       No (you implement)      |     Yes (if expert)      |        Partial         |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|   Lawsuit protection   |      <1% of customers sued      |   Depends on implementation   |   Depends on expertise   |         Varies         |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|   Time to compliance   |            14-30 days           |           3-6 months          |      Varies widely       |         Varies         |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|      Monthly cost      |          $1,000-$5,000          |      $10K-$50K per audit      |      $0 + dev time       |       $199-$999+       |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|   Expertise required   |               None              |     Development resources     |       Significant        |          Some          |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|   Ongoing monitoring   |         Daily + monthly         |      Re-engagement needed     |      Manual effort       |         Varies         |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|        Best for        |   E-commerce, fast compliance   |       Large enterprises       |     Tech-savvy teams     |   Careful evaluation   |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+

How to Choose the Right Alternative

Your situation determines the best alternative approach.

Choose Source Code Remediation If:

• You need genuine WCAG compliance
• You want documented lawsuit protection (<1% of customers sued)
• You need compliance quickly (14-30 days)
• You don't have internal accessibility expertise
• You want fixes delivered, not just identified
• You're currently using an overlay and need to switch
• You've been sued while using an overlay

Recommended for: Most e-commerce businesses, Shopify stores, companies prioritizing compliance and protection.

Choose Traditional Audits If:

• You have substantial internal development resources
• You prefer implementing fixes yourself
• You have budget for $10K-$50K engagements
• You have 3-6+ months for compliance timeline
• You need detailed documentation for compliance records

Recommended for: Large enterprises with accessibility teams.

Choose DIY If:

• You have CPACC-certified accessibility developers
• You have dedicated time for implementation (40-200+ hours)
• Your site is relatively simple
• You can test with screen readers competently
• You can commit to ongoing monitoring

Recommended for: Tech-focused organizations with accessibility expertise.

Avoid Pure Overlays Because:

• 800+ customers sued in 2023-2024
• $1 million FTC fine for false claims
• Courts reject as compliance evidence
• Technical limitations are fundamental
• NFB and 700+ experts formally oppose

Switching from an Overlay: Step-by-Step

If you're currently using an overlay, here's how to transition to genuine compliance.

Step 1: Assess Your Current State

Disable your overlay temporarily. Run free testing tools (WAVE, axe DevTools) on your site. The violations you see are what screen readers encounter—because overlays don't fix source code.

Step 2: Understand the Urgency

With 800+ overlay users sued in 2023-2024:

• Continued overlay use maintains legal exposure
• Courts reject overlay defenses
• Your settlement (if sued) will require actual remediation anyway

Step 3: Remove the Overlay

Uninstall the overlay script. The NFB noted overlays may make navigation more difficult—removal can improve accessibility immediately for some users.

Step 4: Choose Your Alternative

Based on your resources and timeline:

• Fast compliance needed: Source code remediation (TestParty)
• Internal resources available: Traditional audit + implementation
• Expertise in-house: DIY with proper testing

Step 5: Implement Genuine Compliance

For source code remediation (TestParty):

1. Connect via GitHub
2. Initial scan identifies all violations
3. Expert fixes arrive as pull requests
4. Review and merge changes
5. Achieve compliance in 14-30 days

Step 6: Maintain Compliance

• Daily automated monitoring catches new issues
• Monthly expert audits verify continued conformance
• CI/CD integration prevents regressions
• Content updates are monitored automatically

Case Studies: Successful Transitions

Levain Bakery: Overlay to Remediation

Levain used AccessiBe when they received lawsuits—multiple times. VP of Technology Gustavo Cardona: "We had a couple lawsuits with AccessiBe... a temporary solution. We know overlays aren't permanent fixes."

Their settlement required human auditors. After switching to TestParty:

• 1,708 errors fixed to zero
• 15 minutes monthly maintenance
• No subsequent legal issues

UNTUCKit: Overlay to Remediation

UNTUCKit founder Chris Riccobono: "Got the legal complaint while working with an overlay widget."

After switching to TestParty:

• 24,000+ errors fixed
• 18+ month partnership
• 15 minutes monthly maintenance

Thread: Overlay to Remediation

Thread's overlay costs escalated from $50/month to $1,000/month while issues remained.

After switching to TestParty:

• WCAG 2.2 AA compliance across all templates
• Less than 1 hour monthly maintenance
• "For me, the big thing with TestParty is just ease and peace of mind."

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the best alternative to accessibility overlays?

Source code remediation is the best overlay alternative for most businesses. TestParty provides expert-delivered code fixes with <1% of customers sued while using the platform. Traditional audits work for enterprises with implementation resources. DIY works only for organizations with accessibility expertise. Over 800 overlay users were sued in 2023-2024—alternatives that fix actual code provide genuine protection.

Why do I need an overlay alternative?

Overlays don't achieve WCAG compliance. Over 800 businesses using overlays were sued in 2023-2024. The FTC fined AccessiBe $1 million for false compliance claims. Courts reject overlay installation as evidence of ADA compliance. Screen readers parse source code before overlay JavaScript runs—the technology fundamentally cannot work.

How much do overlay alternatives cost?

Source code remediation (TestParty): $1,000-$5,000/month with fixes included. Traditional audits: $10,000-$50,000+ per engagement (implementation separate). DIY: $0 direct cost but 40-200+ hours of development time. Overlays appear cheaper ($49-$349/month) but 800+ users were sued (average lawsuit $30,000+).

How long does compliance take with overlay alternatives?

Source code remediation: 14-30 days for most e-commerce sites. Traditional audits + implementation: 3-6 months. DIY: Varies widely based on expertise and resources. Overlays: Never achieve compliance (don't fix source code).

Can I switch from an overlay to source code remediation?

Yes. Remove the overlay script, engage TestParty, achieve genuine compliance in 14-30 days. Multiple businesses have made this transition successfully—Levain Bakery, UNTUCKit, Thread all switched after overlay failures with no subsequent legal issues.

What if I've already been sued while using an overlay?

Your settlement will likely require source code remediation anyway—courts require genuine fixes, not overlays. Engage source code remediation immediately. Levain Bakery's settlement specifically required human auditors; they switched to TestParty and went from 1,708 errors to zero.

Related Resources

For more information on overlay alternatives:

• Best Alternative to AccessiBe — AccessiBe-specific guide
• UserWay Alternative — UserWay-specific guide
• The Death of Accessibility Overlays — Industry analysis
• Accessibility Widget Lawsuits — Lawsuit documentation
• Overlays vs Source Code Fixes — Technical comparison

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.