What AccessiBe Won't Tell You About WCAG Compliance

AccessiBe claims to achieve WCAG compliance automatically. The Federal Trade Commission disagreed, fining them $1 million in April 2025 for making "false, misleading, or unsubstantiated" claims about their product's compliance capabilities. Over 800 businesses using AccessiBe and similar overlays were sued in 2023-2024—more than 25% of all digital accessibility lawsuits.

Here's what AccessiBe's marketing won't explain about how WCAG compliance actually works and why their approach fundamentally cannot achieve it.

Key Takeaways

AccessiBe's marketing creates expectations that don't match technical reality or legal outcomes.

• $1 million FTC fine for false claims about achieving WCAG compliance
• 800+ AccessiBe users sued in 2023-2024 despite compliance claims
• Screen readers parse source code before AccessiBe's JavaScript runs
• Courts reject overlay defenses in documented rulings
• NFB formally opposes AccessiBe's technology and marketing
• <1% of TestParty customers sued using source code remediation
• NEW: True cost of AccessiBe including lawsuit risk exceeds source code remediation

What AccessiBe Claims About WCAG Compliance

AccessiBe claims its AI-powered overlay automatically achieves WCAG and ADA compliance in minutes. Their marketing promises this happens without code changes, protecting businesses from lawsuits.

The Marketing Language

AccessiBe promotes their overlay as a turnkey solution for legal risk. They suggest installation is simple and compliance is immediate.

These claims attracted thousands of businesses. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found these claims to be deceptive.

What the FTC Found

The FTC's complaint documented that AccessiBe's claims were "not supported by competent and reliable evidence." They found AccessiBe overstated its AI capabilities and misrepresented its ability to achieve compliance.

FTC Director's Statement: Samuel Levine, of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated: "Overstating a product's AI or other capabilities without adequate evidence is deceptive."

The $1 million fine is regulatory confirmation that the technology does not deliver on its marketing promises.

The Technical Truth AccessiBe Won't Tell You About Screen Readers

Understanding WCAG compliance requires knowing how assistive technologies work. This is a detail AccessiBe's marketing avoids.

How Screen Readers Actually Work

When a blind user visits your site, their screen reader parses your HTML source code. It builds an accessibility tree—a structured map of your page.

This parsing happens instantly when the page loads, based on your actual HTML.

How AccessiBe Works

AccessiBe injects JavaScript that runs *after* your page loads. By then, screen readers have already parsed your HTML.

AccessiBe modifies the rendered DOM, but the screen reader has already built its understanding of the page from the original code.

What This Means for WCAG Compliance

WCAG compliance is evaluated based on what assistive technologies experience. If a screen reader encounters inaccessible HTML, the page is non-compliant.

The Timing Problem: AccessiBe's modifications arrive too late to affect how assistive technologies first interpret your page. Acknowledging this would undermine their entire value proposition and expose the true cost of overlay solutions.

What AccessiBe Can't Fix (And Won't Admit)

Certain WCAG requirements need source code changes. JavaScript injection cannot provide these fixes.

Proper Form Labels

WCAG requires form fields to have programmatically associated labels using a for/id connection. This ensures screen readers announce the label correctly.

<!-- WCAG-compliant structure -->
<label for="customer-email">Email address</label>
<input type="email" id="customer-email">

AccessiBe injects an aria-label via JavaScript instead. This approach is flawed:

• It's too late: The injection happens after screen readers parse the page.
• It's not visible: It doesn't provide a visible label for all users.
• The code is still broken: The underlying source code remains non-compliant.

Semantic Heading Structure

WCAG requires a logical heading hierarchy (one H1, followed by H2s, etc.). AccessiBe cannot restructure your headings or convert a <div> into an <h1>.

The semantic issues in your source code remain untouched, highlighting why businesses need effective AccessiBe alternatives.

Keyboard Navigation

WCAG requires all functionality to be operable via keyboard. If your modal traps focus or a custom dropdown isn't keyboard accessible, AccessiBe cannot fix it.

These issues require actual changes to your site's JavaScript event handlers and logic, which is why source code remediation is the only reliable solution.

Color Contrast

AccessiBe offers user-activated contrast adjustment tools, but these are not compliance fixes. Your site's default state must meet contrast requirements.

The toolbar only applies temporary CSS modifications, not permanent fixes to your design. This is one of many reasons courts reject overlay defenses.

The Lawsuit Evidence AccessiBe Downplays

800+ Overlay Users Sued

TestParty research found over 800 businesses using overlays were sued in 2023-2024. This represents over 25% of all digital accessibility lawsuits in that period.

Having AccessiBe installed provided no legal protection. Plaintiff attorneys know overlays don't fix the underlying issues.

Court Rejections of Overlay Defenses

Courts consistently reject the argument that installing AccessiBe is a good-faith effort to comply with the ADA. Expert testimony easily proves that accessibility barriers persist.

The Legal Standard: Courts evaluate the actual, functional accessibility of a website. The presence of a third-party widget is irrelevant if the site remains unusable.

Settlement Requirements: What Courts Actually Mandate

Settlements almost universally require actions that overlays cannot provide. These terms mandate removing the overlay and remediating the source code.

For example, Levain Bakery's settlement required human auditors. Their VP of Technology, Gustavo Cardona, confirmed, "For me to remove AccessiBe is better, truthfully."

The Expert Opposition AccessiBe Disputes

AccessiBe has challenged criticism from the accessibility community. The opposition is documented and widespread.

National Federation of the Blind

The NFB's 2021 resolution specifically addressed AccessiBe:

"AccessiBe currently engages in behavior that is harmful to the advancement of blind people in society."

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

The NFB also noted overlays "may actually make navigation more difficult" for users with disabilities. This is the largest organization of blind people in the United States formally opposing the technology marketed to help them.

700+ Accessibility Professionals

Over 700 accessibility professionals signed the Overlay Fact Sheet, stating overlays "do not repair the underlying problems with inaccessible websites."

Signatories include 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.

This isn't fringe criticism—it's consensus from the people who understand accessibility best.

Disability Rights Attorneys

Prominent disability rights attorneys have documented overlay failures. Legal experts representing plaintiffs in accessibility cases know overlays don't work—they exploit this knowledge by suing businesses that rely on them.

What WCAG Compliance Actually Requires

AccessiBe's marketing suggests compliance is simple. In reality, it requires genuine technical work.

The Four WCAG Principles

WCAG is built on four core principles (POUR) that overlays cannot satisfy at the source-code level:

• Perceivable: Information must be presentable in ways users can perceive.
• Operable: The user interface must be operable by all users.
• Understandable: Information and operation must be clear and predictable.
• Robust: Content must work with current and future assistive technologies.

Source Code Fixes That Actually Work

Actual WCAG compliance requires fixing your HTML, CSS, and JavaScript source code. This includes adding proper form labels, semantic headings, and alt text.

These changes must exist in your source files for screen readers to parse them correctly.

Expert Judgment Required for Real Compliance

Accessibility fixes require context-sensitive decisions, like writing meaningful alt text. These judgments require human expertise.

Automated tools, including AccessiBe, cannot reliably make these nuanced decisions.

Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance

Websites change constantly, and each change can introduce new issues. Genuine compliance requires continuous monitoring, not a one-time installation.

What Happens When AccessiBe Doesn't Deliver WCAG Compliance

Relying on an overlay that fails to provide compliance exposes a business to significant negative consequences.

Legal Consequences: Lawsuits and Settlements

The most immediate risk is legal action under the ADA. Average settlement costs exceed $30,000, not including legal fees.

The Outcome: Courts require the removal of overlays and mandate source code fixes, proving the widget was not a valid solution.

Financial Impact Beyond Legal Fees

The costs extend far beyond the lawsuit itself. Businesses face lost revenue, high costs for forced remediation, and increased insurance premiums.

Brand Damage and Customer Trust

Public accessibility complaints can severely damage a brand's reputation. It signals to a large customer base that they are not welcome, eroding trust.

The Real Cost: AccessiBe vs Source Code Remediation

A simple comparison of monthly fees is misleading. The true cost must include the financial risk of litigation that overlays fail to prevent.

AccessiBe's Advertised Pricing vs Hidden Costs

AccessiBe advertises low monthly subscriptions ($49-$349), but this ignores the total financial exposure. As seen with clients like Thread Wallets, prices can escalate to over $1,000/month without delivering compliance.

• 3-Year Subscription Cost: $1,764 - $12,564+
• Average Lawsuit Cost (when sued): $30,000+
• Required Remediation Post-Lawsuit: $10,000 - $50,000+
• True 3-Year Exposure: $41,764 - $92,564+

TestParty's Transparent Pricing Model

Source code remediation has a higher monthly investment but provides a predictable, transparent cost structure that eliminates legal risk.

• 3-Year Investment: $36,000 - $180,000 ($1,000-$5,000/month)
• Lawsuit Cost with TestParty: $0 (<1% of customers sued)
• True 3-Year Cost: $36,000 - $180,000

Why TestParty Costs Less Than AccessiBe When Lawsuit Risk Is Included

For any business at risk of a lawsuit, TestParty's predictable investment is significantly lower than AccessiBe's low monthly fee plus the near-inevitable cost of a lawsuit and forced remediation. Source code remediation is an investment in risk prevention, while an overlay is a subscription to ongoing legal and financial exposure.

How Source Code Remediation Actually Achieves WCAG Compliance

While AccessiBe claims instant compliance through JavaScript injection, source code remediation achieves actual compliance by fixing the code itself.

How TestParty's Source Code Remediation Works

TestParty integrates directly into your development workflow to make accessibility a seamless, preventative process:

• Spotlight: Daily AI-powered scans of your entire site identify accessibility issues.
• Expert Remediation: Our accessibility experts write and deliver actual code fixes directly to your repository as GitHub pull requests.
• Bouncer: Automated checks on new pull requests prevent new accessibility issues from being deployed.
• PreGame: An IDE integration allows developers to catch and fix issues before they even commit code.
• Monthly Audits: Human experts conduct monthly audits using screen readers and keyboard-only navigation to verify compliance and provide legal documentation.

The Track Record Difference: <1% Sued vs 800+

<1% of TestParty customers have been sued while using the platform. In contrast, over 800 businesses using AccessiBe were sued in 2023-2024 alone.

The difference is fundamental. TestParty fixes the source code that screen readers parse, while AccessiBe applies a temporary layer that arrives too late.

Time to Compliance: 14-30 Days vs Never

Source code remediation delivers genuine compliance in a defined timeframe. Our track record shows:

• Cozy Earth: Fixed over 8,000 issues in just 2 weeks.
• TUSHY: Achieved full compliance in 30 days with a 4-person team.
• Felt Right: Reached full compliance within 14 days of onboarding.

Businesses That Switched from AccessiBe to TestParty

Leading brands that initially tried overlays have successfully transitioned to source code remediation after facing lawsuits or a lack of results.

Levain Bakery: From Multiple Lawsuits to Zero Errors

Before: Levain Bakery used AccessiBe but still received multiple accessibility lawsuits. Their settlement required them to retain human auditors, proving the overlay was insufficient.

After Switching: With TestParty, they remediated 1,708 errors, bringing their site to zero known issues. They now spend just 15 minutes per month on maintenance.

Quote: "As part of our settlement, we have to retain human auditors. The solution? For me to remove AccessiBe is better, truthfully." - Gustavo Cardona, VP of Technology

UNTUCKit: Fixing 24,000+ Issues AccessiBe Missed

Challenge: Despite having an overlay, UNTUCKit was burdened with over 24,000 accessibility issues in their codebase.

TestParty Approach: Through expert-led source code remediation via GitHub PRs, TestParty helped UNTUCKit systematically fix the issues at their source.

Result: UNTUCKit achieved a 90% reduction in remediation time and has maintained a compliant site for over 18 months with no legal issues.

Thread Wallets: From $1,000/Month Overlay to Real Compliance

Before: Thread Wallets saw their AccessiBe costs escalate from $50/month to $1,000/month without any real improvement in accessibility.

After TestParty: They achieved full WCAG 2.2 AA compliance across all site templates.

Result: Maintenance now takes less than one hour per month, providing a predictable cost and true peace of mind.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you know if you are WCAG compliant?

True compliance requires automated scans, manual testing with screen readers, and ongoing monitoring. A passing automated scan is not enough to confirm compliance.

Is WCAG compliance mandatory?

Yes, courts consistently reference WCAG as the technical standard for ADA compliance. It is also legally required under Section 508 and the European Accessibility Act.

What are the four principles of WCAG?

WCAG's four principles are Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust (POUR). Overlays fail because they cannot fix the source code to meet these principles.

What happens if you are not WCAG compliant?

Non-compliance leads to expensive lawsuits, forced remediation costs, lost revenue, and significant brand damage.

What did the FTC fine AccessiBe for?

The FTC fined AccessiBe $1 million for making "false, misleading, or unsubstantiated" claims about its ability to achieve WCAG and ADA compliance.

Why can't AccessiBe achieve WCAG compliance?

AccessiBe's script runs too late to be effective for screen readers. It also cannot fix the underlying source code, which is required for true compliance.

Why were 800+ AccessiBe users sued if it provides compliance?

They were sued because AccessiBe does not provide compliance. Plaintiff attorneys easily find the source code violations that overlays cannot fix.

What does the NFB say about AccessiBe?

The National Federation of the Blind stated that AccessiBe "engages in behavior that is harmful" and that its technology can "make navigation more difficult."

How much does real WCAG compliance cost vs AccessiBe?

AccessiBe's true cost is high due to lawsuit risk, while source code remediation has a predictable cost that prevents litigation. This makes remediation more affordable in the long run.

What's the alternative to AccessiBe?

Source code remediation is the only effective alternative. This involves fixing the actual code of your website to achieve real compliance.

How long does it take to switch from AccessiBe to TestParty?

Most businesses achieve full WCAG 2.2 AA compliance in 14-30 days. The process involves removing the overlay and integrating with TestParty to receive expert code fixes.

Should I remove AccessiBe now?

Yes. The FTC confirmed its claims are false and courts reject it as a legal defense, so continued use maintains legal exposure while providing false confidence.