State of Digital Accessibility Report: 2025-2026 Exploring our findings

Organizations are continuing to build a strong foundation for sustainable accessibility. More than three in four (77%) professionals we surveyed say their organization has a policy, accountable party, and dedicated budget for digital accessibility—three key markers of program maturity—relative to 73% in 2024. This slight increase suggests teams are maintaining, and perhaps reinforcing, the infrastructure they’ve established for accessibility management.

Adoption of key program maturity indicators is holding steady.

However, regional differences exist. Professionals in Europe are more likely to say they have a policy, accountable party, and dedicated budget than those in the U.S.: 83% of EU-based respondents report they have all three elements, compared to 74% of U.S. respondents. This may be attributed in part to the tight regulatory landscape in Europe, particularly following the June 2025 European Accessibility Act (EAA) enforcement deadline—it’s possible that regulatory pressure has prompted EU-based organizations to codify and operationalize their accessibility efforts.

Notably, respondents to this year’s survey are slightly more likely than those surveyed last year to say their organization intends to sustain or expand its financial investment in accessibility: 68% of this year’s respondents say they plan to maintain or increase their budgets in the next 12 months, compared to 62% last year. Stable investment suggests that many organizations continue to understand that accessibility is not a one-time project, but a continuous practice that requires ongoing resourcing.

“The data confirms what we’ve been seeing: an increasing number of organizations took the first part of 2025 to invest in a digital accessibility policy. Leaders are recognizing the business value of accessibility as a discipline in need of more than a checkbox. Like any other business function, accessibility programs need clearly defined roles and responsibilities, ongoing governance, and dedicated resources.”

Organizations are also sustaining progress across other maturity indicators, including executive support. More than six in 10 respondents (62%) describe their organization’s executive leadership as “highly supportive” of digital accessibility initiatives—relative to 59% of respondents in 2024.

Proof of accessibility remains a widespread requirement in B2B procurement.

Accessible procurement, another signal of program maturity, remains a focus for teams. While a similar proportion of respondents as last year (75% in 2025, 74% in 2024) say their organizations require proof of accessibility at least most of the time when purchasing digital products, the proportion that say they “always” require accessibility ticked up slightly from 27% in 2024 to 31% this year.

This finding is particularly relevant for business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-government (B2G) software vendors, implying that documented product accessibility is increasingly expected by prospective clients. This documentation typically takes the form of a completed Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT®), and vendors should note that VPAT reports may now be even more crucial to winning, and retaining, contracts than in previous years.

75% of respondents say accessibility is a requirement most or all of the time when purchasing digital products.

Organizations’ sustained investment in accessibility may be tied to widespread recognition of the benefits of this work. Nearly nine in 10 (89%) respondents feel prioritizing digital accessibility provides a competitive edge for their organization.

As was the case in 2024, professionals link digital accessibility to a wide range of positive business outcomes, including user experience, customer satisfaction, and revenue.

89% of respondents say prioritizing digital accessibility is a competitive advantage.

These findings, which are largely consistent with last year’s data, suggest that organizations continue to understand that digital accessibility is more than a compliance obligation—it’s a business advantage.

Business outcomes positively influenced by digital accessibility

What motivates organizations to address digital accessibility?

While compliance has long been the primary driver of digital accessibility programs, the insights suggest that program motivation is becoming more multi-faceted. When asked why they began addressing digital accessibility, respondents are most likely to cite “improving usability for all / creating equal opportunities for people with disabilities” as the primary driver (selected by 35% of respondents), followed by legal compliance (26%). These were also the top two reasons organizations provided for continuing their efforts.

Primary reasons organizations start addressing digital accessibility

Primary reasons organizations continue addressing digital accessibility

“Many accessibility programs are initially motivated by compliance. However, digital accessibility is ultimately about allowing people with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in society. The more that organizations recognize the human impact of their work, the more motivated they tend to be to go beyond baseline compliance requirements and create inclusive, equitable experiences for all users.”

This general trend is reflected within the U.S. private sector and among all European respondents. Notably, however, U.S. public-sector respondents most often cite compliance as their initial trigger—a fact potentially informed by recent rulemaking under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Program ownership mirrors this distinction: 22% of U.S. public-sector organizations place accessibility under legal or compliance teams, compared to 16% in the private sector.

Consistent with other segments, U.S. public-sector organizations are most likely to select “improving usability for all / creating equal opportunities for people with disabilities” as their primary motivator for continuing to address digital accessibility, indicating that compliance often catalyzes change among these organizations while user benefit sustains it.

As organizations establish the infrastructure for mature programs—and reap the rewards—many teams are leveraging AI tools to accelerate progress. A notable 82% of organizations say they use AI tools in their accessibility strategies, relative to 79% last year. Additionally, 86% say AI capabilities are an important factor when they’re considering purchasing new accessibility tools, up from 79% last year.

82% of respondents say they use AI tools in their accessibility strategies.

These figures may not be surprising, given that AI tools promise to solve for one of the most common roadblocks faced by accessibility programs: limited time. In this year’s survey, respondents once again widely ranked “Insufficient time to address accessibility issues” among the top three challenges facing their program. Roughly one third (32%) included it in this short list, making it the second most common challenge after “competing priorities” (cited by 35% of respondents). By automating previously manual processes, AI tools may help teams reclaim valuable hours.

Notably, adoption of AI tools is higher among programs that show key markers of accessibility maturity: 92% of respondents with a policy, budget, and accountable party for accessibility say they’re incorporating AI into their strategies, compared to just 57% of those with some, but not all, of these elements in place. This may be because more mature programs tend to be better resourced—and, as a result, are more likely to have the budget to procure AI tools. They may also be more likely to be seeking tools to amplify and expand their impact without adding headcount, and / or to have accessibility governance structures in place that can support responsible and effective AI adoption.

Organizations with key maturity indicators are more likely to adopt AI accessibility tools.

Respondents at organizations that address digital accessibility proactively in the SDLC are also more likely to adopt AI tools than those who take a more reactive approach: 86% of respondents who begin to address digital accessibility in planning, and 82% of those who begin to address it in design, say they’re adopting AI tools. This is relative to 56% of those who wait until after an experience is live to address digital accessibility.

Additionally, large organizations with between 3,000 and 4,999 employees are particularly likely to be leveraging AI. More than nine in 10 (93%) of respondents within this segment say they’re incorporating AI. This may be because AI tools are the most efficient way for these organizations to support accessibility at scale. A notable 43% of respondents at organizations with 3,000-4,999 employees rank “using AI to automate and scale accessibility processes” among their program’s top three priorities, relative to 37% of respondents overall.

Legal activity remains widespread. More than half (53%) of organizations report facing legal or regulatory action in the past year, up from 43% last year, and 59% believe they’re at risk in the year ahead, compared to 41% last year.

59% of respondents say they are at risk of legal action in the next 12 months.

Perceived risk is highest in the U.S. public sector, where eight in 10 respondents say they’re at risk of legal or regulatory action related to digital accessibility in the next 12 months. This finding may be informed by the current April 2026 effective date for digital accessibility rulemaking from 2024 under ADA Title II, which applies to state and local government entities.

Respondents in energy, manufacturing, and retail were also particularly likely to anticipate legal exposure. While professionals in all three industries reported above-average perceived risk last year, we observed substantial increases in reported risk within energy and manufacturing: 83% of this year’s respondents in energy feel they’re at risk, compared to 47% last year, and 73% of those in manufacturing say the same, compared to 52% last year.

This rise may be driven by several factors. It’s possible that firms specializing in digital accessibility litigation are expanding to new industries, as those historically targeted—such as retail and banking—have become saturated with lawsuits. Additionally, some U.S. energy companies that receive state funding are bound by state laws mandating ADA Title II compliance.

Segments and industries with above-average perceived risk of legal action in the next 12 months:

• U.S. public sector: 80% believe they’re at risk
• Energy: 83% believe they’re at risk
• Manufacturing: 73% believe they’re at risk
• Retail: 64% believe they’re at risk

EAA: Compliance lags behind awareness.

With enforcement of the EAA now underway, our findings suggest that compliance efforts may be overdue for many organizations. While 76% of respondents surveyed say the EAA applies to their organization, just 37% say they’re fully compliant. That means that fewer than half (48%) of professionals at organizations covered by the law believe they have achieved compliance. Reported compliance fell behind awareness for both U.S. and Europe-based respondents.

Reported EAA compliance status across regions

Do organizations understand their real risk?

Organizations’ widespread sense of legal risk doesn’t align with their reported levels of confidence in digital experiences. Overall, 92% of organizations say they are at least “somewhat confident” in the accessibility of their primary digital experience (such as their website) and 82% say they are at least “somewhat confident” in the accessibility of all other external-facing digital experiences—yet nearly six in 10 believe they may face litigation or regulatory action.

This disparity, which we’ve also observed in previous years’ research, suggests teams may not have a clear understanding of their true risk status.

“Many accessibility teams don’t have a simple way of keeping tabs on their real risk exposure. The problem isn’t that they don’t have enough data—it’s having too much of it. This is where AI can be a game-changer. Intelligent tools like the Level Access Platform’s Monitoring Summaries, Audit Summaries, and Common Findings condense mountains of data into actionable takeaways, providing teams with much-needed clarity on where they truly stand from a risk perspective, and where to focus to reduce exposure. More importantly, AI tools can help organizations proactively embed accessibility intelligence in experience creation to prevent risks from surfacing in the first place.”

 

Why do so many organizations believe they’re at risk of legal action? The most frequently cited reason for perceived risk is not lack of awareness or resources, but gaps in process. Nearly half (49%) of those who believe they are at risk in the year ahead attribute this risk to “Lack of sufficient process to efficiently meet compliance requirements for digital accessibility.”

Factors driving perceived legal risk

This lack of sufficient process may be attributed to difficulty embedding accessibility checkpoints throughout the SDLC. In fact, while many organizations report taking a proactive approach to digital accessibility, the data indicates that momentum has plateaued year-over year. Overall, 83% of respondents agree that their organization approaches accessibility proactively rather than reactively, but only 41% strongly agree—roughly consistent with 85% and 44% last year, respectively.

Stalled momentum with regard to bringing accessibility earlier in the experience creation process is backed up by respondents’ reports of when they start addressing accessibility within the SDLC. The data is largely stable year-over-year, with the most notable shifts being fewer respondents saying they begin to address accessibility in design and more saying they start in quality assurance (QA).

Proactive digital accessibility adoption is plateauing.

To further interrogate this self-reported data, it’s possible that conversations about accessibility may be occurring early in the SDLC, but that these conversations are not yet translating into consistent process integration. This is supported by the fact that respondents’ reported use of tools for embedding accessibility into the SDLC does not align with when they say they begin addressing accessibility.

Specifically, while 56% of respondents say their organization begins addressing accessibility in design or earlier, in planning, only 28% report using designer tools. This gap may indicate that, for many organizations, proactive accessibility may remain conceptual rather than operational.

“The most efficient, and effective way to deliver accessible experiences is to start at the very beginning of the software development life cycle, in planning and design. In practice, that takes more than a conversation—it requires education and intelligent tools. What this year’s data is telling us is that many teams may be aware of accessibility during these earlier stages, but that awareness isn’t always translating into action.”

Given that respondents to our 2024 survey cited approaching accessibility more proactively as a top priority for their program, it’s worth exploring why teams aren’t making more progress toward realizing this goal. One potential factor is the accelerating pace of development. As designers, developers, and content authors increasingly adopt AI-driven tools to improve velocity, accessibility teams may lack the technology needed to keep pace.

“Digital experience teams are increasingly harnessing AI assistants to accelerate production velocity, and accessibility needs to keep pace. The challenge is that many accessibility tools live outside of teams’ LLM-powered workflows, forcing designers and developers to switch context for accessibility information and guidance. Level Access’s MCP-server solves for this by connecting accessibility intelligence to the AI assistants that teams are already using, so teams can get the data and direction they need without leaving their environments.”

Our findings underscore that executive support is central to digital accessibility programs’ success. Respondents who say executives at their organizations are “highly supportive” of digital accessibility are more likely than those with moderate or no executive support to connect digital accessibility to improvements across a wide range of business outcomes.

Relationship between executive support and the business impact of digital accessibility

Leadership support also corresponds with lower perceived legal risk: 56% of respondents at organizations with “highly supportive” executives anticipate legal action in the year ahead, compared to 64% of those with “moderately supportive” executives and 70% of those with no executive support.

This correlation may be attributed to the fact that leaders can provide accessibility programs with the visibility and resources they need to advance maturity and embed accessibility across their operations—reducing the likelihood that inaccessible experiences are launched, and ensuring non-compliant experiences are fixed. Among respondents at organizations with “highly supportive” executives, 90% have a digital accessibility policy, a party accountable for ensuring accessibility, and a budget for their accessibility program, compared to 62% of those with moderate executive support and 6% of those with none.

Not surprisingly, respondents at organizations with “highly supportive” executives are 31% less likely than those with moderate support from executives to rank insufficient budget among the top three challenges facing their programs. This observation corresponds to a long-held line of investigation for many accessibility champions around the appropriate way to secure buy-in from upper management.

Broader adoption of reporting may be needed to demonstrate program impact to leaders.

Even though executive support is essential to building effective programs, our research suggests many organizations still struggle to prove the value of digital accessibility to stakeholders. Nearly one-third (31%) of respondents cite “lack of alignment on the value of accessibility” as one of the top three challenges facing their programs, indicating that accessibility teams may have difficulty demonstrating the business impact of their work.

31% of respondents say “lack of alignment on the value of digital accessibility” is one of the top challenges facing their program.

This difficulty may be tied to a need for adoption of reporting tools as part of digital accessibility solutions. Reports that capture accessibility progress can help teams communicate how their efforts contribute to business goals, such as risk reduction and improved user experience, empowering them to obtain, and sustain, executive support. Yet only 30% of respondents say they’re currently using reporting and analytics tools, potentially pointing to a need for more intuitive and effective reporting solutions.

When asked to identify the most impactful actions they’ve taken to advance accessibility, professionals were most likely to include accessibility training among their top three, reinforcing the pivotal role that education plays in building organizational maturity and sustaining long-term progress.

“Organizations must continue to invest in not only tools but also in their employees, evolving the accessibility profession—thus building a team of professionals with the knowledge and skillset they need to embrace evolving technology, rethink traditional roles, and expand their influence across industries and regions.”

However, access to highly effective training remains uneven. Just 45% of respondents rate their organization’s training as “highly effective,” underscoring a persistent gap between intent and implementation. The availability of effective training is particularly limited within the U.S. public sector: only 30% of U.S. public-sector respondents describe their training as highly effective, compared with 51% in the U.S. private sector and 49% in Europe.

This gap may indicate that many organizations are still approaching education as a box to check through annual required training, rather than providing courses that truly engage learners, activate their prior knowledge, and connect lessons to their day-to-day tasks.

Training quality matters: Respondents from organizations that offer highly effective training are more likely to connect accessibility to tangible business outcomes. For example, those at organizations with “highly effective training” are 29% more likely to say digital accessibility has improved user experience, and 3.5 times as likely to link accessibility to improved revenue, relative to those with ineffective training.

Reported improvements in key business outcomes relative to training quality

This may be attributed in part to the correlation between reported training effectiveness and other indicators of program maturity, such as proactivity and cultural integration:

• Nearly all (95%) respondents with “highly effective” training say their organization addresses accessibility proactively, rather than reactively, relative to 36% among those with ineffective training.
• Additionally, 98% of respondents who say their organization offers “highly effective” training agree that accessibility is part of their organization’s culture, compared to 57% among those with ineffective training.

Together, these findings suggest that high-quality training plays an essential role in turning accessibility from a one-off project into a practice that’s embedded in teams’ ways of working.

“Relevant training at the right time is what enables teams to operationalize accessibility across roles and workflows, turning policy into daily practice. As organizations look to scale their programs, closing the training effectiveness gap, particularly within the U.S. public sector, is critical to sustaining long-term progress and achieving accessibility goals.”