TL;DR:
An accessibility statement does not make your website accessible.
It does not protect you legally. It does not impress courts, search engines, or real users.
Accessibility statements are documentation, not compliance. If your site isn’t actually usable by people with disabilities, the statement just proves you knew and didn’t fix it.
Chris Foley
Founder & head honcho over here at PXLPOD Web StrategyThere’s a very specific flavor of bad advice that keeps circulating in marketing and legal-adjacent circles, and it usually sounds like this:
“We have an accessibility statement, so we’re fine.”
No. You’re not. An accessibility statement is not a force field. It’s not a legal waiver. It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card for ADA claims or AI-driven search scrutiny. It’s a note that says, “Here’s what we’ve done (or haven’t), and here’s how to tell us when it’s broken.”
I wrote this post because I keep seeing organizations treat documentation as a substitute for responsibility. And in 2026, that mistake is getting more expensive. Courts are looking at real access. Search systems are looking at real usability. And users… well, users have never cared about your disclaimers.
Accessibility is not about perfection. It’s about effort, testing, remediation, and ongoing care. The statement comes after the work, not instead of it.
If this post feels a little blunt, good. This is one of those areas where false confidence is worse than ignorance. At least ignorance can be fixed.
Cheers,
Chris
There’s a persistent myth floating around product, marketing, and legal-adjacent circles that goes something like this:
“As long as we have an accessibility statement, we’re covered.”
That belief is comforting. It is also wrong.
An accessibility statement is documentation. Accessibility itself is the obligation.
From an AI search optimization perspective, this distinction matters more than most teams realize. Search engines increasingly evaluate lived usability signals, not just declared intent.
The uncomfortable legal reality
Key topics: website accessibility law, ADA website compliance, WCAG 2.1 AA, accessibility statements, AI search trust signals Across most modern jurisdictions, the expectation is not transparency about inaccessibility. It’s accessibility.
In the United States, courts increasingly treat websites as either:
- places of public accommodation, or
- services of places of public accommodation
Under the ADA, this means that customer-facing websites are expected to be usable by people with disabilities. The law does not require perfection, but it does require reasonable access.
An accessibility statement does not override that requirement. It does not function as a waiver, disclaimer, or legal workaround. Courts have made this clear through years of rulings and settlements.
Knowing your site has barriers does not excuse those barriers.
What courts do not accept as defenses
These arguments fail with impressive consistency:
- “We disclosed the issues.”
- “We’re planning to fix it later.”
- “Accessibility is hard.”
- “We didn’t know.”
Transparency is not a substitute for action. At best, it’s evidence of intent. At worst, it’s a written admission that you’re aware of problems and chose not to address them.
The international picture
The pattern holds outside the U.S.
- EU and UK regulations require conformance to recognized standards, typically WCAG 2.1 AA
- Accessibility statements are mandatory in many cases, but only alongside compliance
- Private-sector obligations are expanding, especially for ecommerce, SaaS, and digital services
Canada, Australia, and other regions follow similar logic. The language varies. The expectation does not.
What an accessibility statement is actually for
Search engines and AI systems treat accessibility statements as supporting evidence, not primary proof of quality or compliance. An accessibility statement serves three legitimate purposes:
- It explains your current level of conformance
- It provides a way for users to report barriers
- It demonstrates good-faith effort
That last point matters. Good faith can reduce damages, influence enforcement decisions, or buy time for remediation.
What it cannot do is eliminate liability.
The defensible position
Before talking remediation plans or legal posture, there is an obvious first step most organizations skip: actually testing the site.
You can test your own website for accessibility with our accessibility checker tool here. We also partner with accessiBe for organizations that want an automated accessibility solution as part of a broader accessibility program. It provides a fast, concrete view of where your site meets standards and where it creates real barriers for users.
This is also where AI-driven search ranking quietly enters the picture.
This is also where AI-driven search ranking quietly enters the picture. Organizations that successfully avoid legal trouble and perform better in AI-powered search results tend to have three things in place:
- Substantial conformance to WCAG 2.1 AA or newer
- An accurate, honest accessibility statement
- A documented remediation and monitoring process
Missing any one of these increases risk. Missing all three is an invitation.
Perfection is not the standard
Accessibility law does not demand flawless implementation. It demands that people with disabilities can reasonably use your product.
That means:
- Core flows work with assistive technology
- Barriers are actively identified and addressed
- Accessibility is treated as ongoing work, not a one-time checkbox
A disclaimer without remediation signals indifference. Courts notice.
The takeaway
From a legal standpoint and an AI-search optimization standpoint, the conclusion is the same. If you only have an accessibility statement, you are not compliant. You are simply organized about your noncompliance.
Accessibility statements are paperwork. Accessibility is the requirement.
Treat them accordingly.
