Why Accessibility Overlays Increase Your Lawsuit Risk

Accessibility overlays—JavaScript widgets promising automatic WCAG compliance—don't work and may actually increase your lawsuit exposure. TestParty research based on Court Listener data shows that over 1,000 businesses using overlays were sued for accessibility violations in 2023-2024, representing 25%+ of all digital accessibility lawsuits. The FTC fined AccessiBe $1 million in January 2025 for making "false, misleading, or unsubstantiated" claims about its product's ability to make websites compliant.

The promise is seductive: add a single line of code and achieve ADA compliance without touching your website. The reality is that overlays operate as a thin layer on top of inaccessible content, addressing surface symptoms while leaving fundamental barriers intact. Screen reader users still can't navigate properly labeled content. Keyboard users still can't access features that lack proper focus management. The underlying code remains broken.

Understanding why overlays fail—technically, legally, and from the disability community perspective—helps organizations avoid a false sense of security that often leads to worse outcomes than doing nothing at all.

Key Takeaways

Overlays create risk rather than mitigating it, despite marketing claims to the contrary.

• No legal protection – Courts haven't accepted overlay installation as ADA compliance evidence; plaintiffs successfully sue overlay users by demonstrating continued barriers
• NFB and advocacy opposition – The National Federation of the Blind's 2021 resolution explicitly condemns overlays as "harmful" and making "misleading claims"
• FTC enforcement action – AccessiBe's $1 million fine establishes regulatory precedent against overlay marketing claims
• 1,000+ overlay users sued – TestParty research shows over 25% of 2023-2024 accessibility lawsuits targeted businesses with overlays installed
• Technical limitations – Overlays can't fix keyboard navigation, heading structure, form labels, or other code-level issues requiring source modifications

What Overlays Claim to Do

Overlay vendors market their products as comprehensive accessibility solutions requiring minimal effort from website owners.

The Marketing Promise

Typical overlay marketing emphasizes:

• One-line installation – Add a script tag and you're "compliant"
• AI-powered fixes – Machine learning automatically identifies and repairs accessibility issues
• Legal protection – Compliance certificates and lawsuit guarantees
• WCAG conformance – Claims of meeting AA or even AAA standards
• User customization – Toolbar options for font size, contrast, screen reader modes

The appeal is obvious: a $500/year subscription instead of thousands in development costs. No engineering resources required. Immediate "compliance."

How Overlays Actually Work

Overlays inject JavaScript that attempts to modify page behavior in real-time:

• Screen reader modes – Alter page content or reading order when detecting assistive technology
• Visual adjustments – Provide toolbar controls for font size, contrast, spacing
• AI remediation – Use image recognition to generate alt text, attempt to infer form labels
• Keyboard enhancements – Add some keyboard handlers to otherwise inaccessible elements

The fundamental limitation: overlays work on top of existing HTML/CSS/JavaScript. They cannot change the underlying code. If a button is built as a non-focusable `<div>`, the overlay might add a tabindex, but it can't ensure proper ARIA, keyboard handlers, and focus management that make the button actually usable.

DOJ and Regulatory Positions

Official regulatory guidance explicitly cautions against relying on overlay-style solutions.

DOJ Guidance

The Department of Justice's 2022 web accessibility guidance doesn't specifically name overlays but directly undermines their premise:

> "Automated accessibility solutions alone are not sufficient. A 'clean' report from an automated tool does not mean a website is accessible."

The DOJ emphasizes that actual functional accessibility matters—not the presence of particular technology. An overlay's scanning dashboard showing "95% compliant" is meaningless if blind users can't complete checkout.

FTC Enforcement

In January 2025, the FTC ordered AccessiBe to pay $1 million for deceptive advertising. The FTC found the company made:

• False claims that its AI solution could make websites fully accessible
• Misleading statements about achieving WCAG compliance
• Unsubstantiated assertions about preventing ADA lawsuits

The FTC's business guidance blog stated: "Overstating a product's AI or other capabilities without adequate evidence is deceptive, and the FTC will act to stop it."

This regulatory action establishes precedent that overlay compliance claims face legal scrutiny.

No Court Acceptance

No court has accepted overlay installation as an ADA compliance defense. In multiple cases:

• Plaintiffs demonstrated continued barriers despite overlay presence
• Expert testimony established overlays don't achieve actual accessibility
• Businesses using overlays settled after failing to show functional compliance

The legal reality: you're judged on whether disabled users can actually use your site, not whether you've installed particular software.

Disability Advocacy Positions

The disability community has been vocal in opposing overlay technology.

National Federation of the Blind

The NFB's 2021 resolution condemned overlays in unusually strong terms:

> "The Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind condemns the company known as AccessiBe and all other overlay companies that make unproven claims about the accessibility of their products and that aggressively attack blind individuals who question their technology."

The resolution specifically called out:

• "Misleading, unproven, and unethical claims which falsely inflate the value and effectiveness of their technology"
• "Harmful behavior" and "dismissive attitudes toward blind users' concerns"
• Technology that "presents new barriers" for screen reader users

The NFB revoked AccessiBe's sponsorship and banned them from organization events—an extraordinary step from the largest blind advocacy group in the United States.

Overlay Fact Sheet

The Overlay Fact Sheet has been signed by over 700 accessibility professionals, including experts from:

• Google, Microsoft, Apple, Shopify
• BBC, eBay, Target, CVS Health, Dell, Lyft
• MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Syracuse, Gallaudet University

The statement declares:

> "Overlays do not repair the underlying problems with inaccessible websites. They do not provide legal protection against lawsuits. They often introduce new barriers that make sites worse."

This represents broad professional consensus across the accessibility community.

User Experience Reports

Disabled users consistently report negative experiences with overlays:

• Screen reader interference—overlays detect AT and alter content unexpectedly
• Keyboard navigation conflicts—overlay handlers interfere with standard navigation
• Cognitive overload—toolbar options add complexity rather than solving problems
• Inconsistent behavior—overlays work differently (or not at all) across browsers and AT combinations

Some accessibility advocates specifically target overlay-using sites to demonstrate the technology's failure, potentially increasing lawsuit likelihood for overlay customers.

Technical Limitations

Overlays can't solve fundamental accessibility issues that require code-level changes.

What Overlays Cannot Fix

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|            Issue            |                 Why Overlays Fail                  |               What's Actually Needed               |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|     Keyboard navigation     | Can't restructure DOM or add proper event handlers | Rebuild components with native elements or proper ARIA |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|      Heading structure      |             Can't change HTML elements             | Modify page templates to use proper heading hierarchy |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|   Form label associations   |          Injected ARIA often insufficient          | Add proper `<label>` elements associated with inputs |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|       Focus management      |    Can't implement proper modal focus trapping     | JavaScript focus management in the actual codebase |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|         Target sizes        |              Can't change CSS layout               |     Increase padding/dimensions in stylesheets     |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|       Complex widgets       |   Can't make custom widgets properly accessible    | Implement ARIA authoring practices in component code |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+

Partial Fixes That Create Problems

Some overlay "fixes" introduce new issues:

AI-generated alt text:

• May describe images incorrectly ("person smiling" when it's someone frowning)
• Lacks context (doesn't know what's important for your specific use case)
• Often too generic to be useful ("image of product")

Screen reader mode:

• Alters content in ways users don't expect
• May conflict with users' preferred AT settings
• Creates inconsistent experience across visits

Keyboard enhancements:

• Added tabindex may create illogical focus order
• Overlay keyboard handlers may conflict with native handlers
• Still doesn't provide full widget keyboard patterns (arrow key navigation, etc.)

Detection and Targeting

Overlay presence is trivially detectable. Plaintiffs' attorneys and accessibility advocates can:

• Check for common overlay script patterns
• Look for overlay toolbar widgets
• Verify the site still has fundamental barriers

Some advocates specifically target overlay users to:

• Demonstrate overlay ineffectiveness in court
• Build case law against overlay defense claims
• Pressure businesses into real remediation

Using an overlay may mark your site for enhanced scrutiny rather than protection.

Real-World Failure Scenarios

Overlay failures manifest in practical user experiences that become evidence in legal proceedings.

E-commerce Checkout

A blind user visits a Shopify store with an overlay installed:

1. They activate the overlay's "screen reader mode"
2. The overlay adds some additional ARIA labels to buttons
3. But the checkout form still has custom dropdown components that aren't keyboard accessible
4. The shipping address autocomplete widget traps keyboard focus
5. Error messages aren't announced because they lack proper ARIA live regions
6. Result: User cannot complete purchase despite overlay presence

The overlay's compliance dashboard shows 90% score. The user experience shows complete failure on the critical conversion path.

Complex Navigation

A user with motor impairments relies on keyboard navigation:

1. The overlay adds tabindex to some elements
2. But the mega-menu still only opens on mouse hover
3. Dropdown categories can't be accessed via keyboard
4. Focus order jumps illogically due to overlay modifications
5. Result: User cannot navigate to product categories

Documentation for Lawsuits

Plaintiffs document these failures through:

• Video recordings of failed interactions
• Screen reader output logs
• Expert analysis of code-level barriers
• Comparison testing showing overlays didn't resolve issues

This evidence demonstrates that despite installing an "accessibility solution," the business didn't actually make their site accessible—potentially showing willful neglect.

Better Alternatives

Real accessibility requires fixing actual code, but the investment is more manageable than overlay marketing suggests.

Source Code Remediation

Address issues where they originate:

• Add proper alt text – Describe images meaningfully in your CMS or templates
• Fix form labels – Associate labels with inputs using proper HTML
• Enable keyboard navigation – Use semantic elements or implement proper ARIA
• Structure content – Use heading hierarchy and landmarks
• Ensure contrast – Adjust colors in your stylesheets

These changes are permanent, don't require ongoing subscriptions, and actually work.

Accessible Design Systems

Build accessibility into your component library:

• Use established accessible patterns (Radix, Headless UI, React Aria)
• Enforce accessibility requirements in component props
• Document accessibility expectations for component usage
• Test components with screen readers during development

Once components are accessible, everything built with them inherits accessibility.

Continuous Monitoring

Replace overlay scanning with genuine testing:

• Automated checks in CI/CD catch code-level issues
• Regular manual testing validates real user experience
• Accessibility specialists review complex interactions
• User testing with disabled participants identifies practical barriers

This approach catches issues before they reach production and validates fixes actually work.

Engage Real Users

Overlays claim to know what disabled users need. Actually ask them:

• Usability testing with screen reader users
• Feedback mechanisms for reporting barriers
• Relationships with disability advocacy organizations
• Hiring disabled team members who use AT daily

User feedback is more valuable than any automated solution.

For comprehensive alternatives, see Beyond Overlays: Accessibility Solutions That Actually Work.

The Cost Comparison

Overlay vendors emphasize low subscription costs. The full picture tells a different story.

Overlay Economics

+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|         Factor         |         Overlay Approach        |              Source Code Approach             |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|      Initial cost      |         ~$500-2,000/year        |         $5,000-30,000 (varies by site)        |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|      Ongoing cost      |       Subscription forever      |                Maintenance only               |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|   Lawsuit protection   |     None (1,000+ users sued)    |        Genuine compliance reduces risk        |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|     Legal defense      |   Overlay shown as inadequate   |         Documentation supports defense        |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|    User experience     |           Often worse           |               Genuinely improved              |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|      SEO benefit       |               None              |   Improved (accessible markup ranks better)   |
+------------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Hidden Overlay Costs

Overlays often lead to:

• Lawsuit settlements – Overlay presence doesn't prevent litigation
• Remediation anyway – Settlements require actual fixes
• Reputation damage – Disability community opposition, public criticism
• False confidence – Delayed proper remediation while issues compound
• Switching costs – Eventually migrating to real solutions anyway

Real Remediation ROI

Proper accessibility investment delivers:

• Actual lawsuit risk reduction
• Expanded market reach (28.7% of US adults have disabilities per CDC)
• SEO improvements (accessible markup ranks better)
• Better overall UX (accessibility improvements help all users)
• Sustainable compliance (one-time fixes vs. perpetual subscription)

The math consistently favors genuine remediation over overlay subscriptions, especially when factoring legal risk.

FAQ

Do any courts accept overlays as ADA compliance?

No. No court has accepted overlay installation as evidence of ADA compliance. Plaintiffs consistently win cases against overlay users by demonstrating that barriers remain despite the overlay. The overlay's presence may actually work against defendants by suggesting awareness of accessibility obligations without genuine remediation.

Why does the disability community oppose overlays so strongly?

Disability advocates oppose overlays because they:

1. Don't actually make sites accessible (users still encounter barriers)
2. Sometimes make sites worse (interfering with assistive technology)
3. Are marketed with false claims about compliance
4. Allow businesses to avoid genuine accessibility investment
5. Represent exploitation of accessibility obligations for profit without benefit to disabled users

Can overlays ever be part of an accessibility strategy?

Some limited user customization features (like font size adjustment) can complement accessible sites. However, these shouldn't be presented as accessibility solutions—accessible sites should already be usable without such adjustments. Never rely on overlays for compliance. They're cosmetic additions at best, harmful interference at worst.

What should I do if I already have an overlay installed?

1. Don't immediately remove it (may not change much)
2. Conduct a genuine accessibility audit
3. Develop a remediation plan for source-code fixes
4. Implement fixes on priority issues first
5. Remove the overlay once genuine accessibility is established
6. Document your transition to demonstrate good faith compliance efforts

How do I explain to leadership why we shouldn't use an overlay?

Focus on:

• Legal risk (1,000+ overlay users sued, $1M FTC fine)
• Advocacy opposition (NFB, 700+ experts on Overlay Fact Sheet)
• Technical reality (overlays can't fix code-level issues)
• Actual costs (subscription + eventual remediation + potential lawsuit)
• Genuine alternatives (source code fixes provide real protection)

Are there any legitimate uses for accessibility toolbars?

Some organizations offer user preference tools (text sizing, contrast adjustments) as helpful extras. These differ from overlays in that they:

• Don't claim to achieve compliance
• Supplement already-accessible sites
• Provide user control without modifying the underlying experience
• Are transparent about capabilities

Such tools can be valuable but shouldn't replace genuine accessibility.

Related Resources

Internal Links

• Beyond Overlays: Accessibility Solutions That Actually Work
• Why Source Code Remediation Beats Overlays
• Overlays vs Code Fixes: An Honest Technical Teardown
• Can Accessibility Overlays Protect You from Lawsuits?
• ADA Website Compliance: What Actually Triggers a Lawsuit
• The Death of Accessibility Overlays: Why the Industry Is Moving to Source Code

External Sources

• FTC AccessiBe Settlement and Final Order
• FTC Business Blog: Million Dollar Blunder
• NFB 2021 Resolutions
• Overlay Fact Sheet
• DOJ Guidance on Web Accessibility
• W3C Accessibility at the Edge Community Group
• CDC 2024 Disability Statistics

This article was written by TestParty's editorial team with AI assistance. All statistics and claims have been verified against primary sources. Last updated: January 2026.