Resources
Start with evidence, not assumptions.
These independent sources explain technical standards and U.S. federal guidance. They are offered for education, not as legal advice or a conclusion about any unassessed website.
Source library
Authoritative references, with scope attached
Accessibility standards and legal duties are related, but they are not interchangeable. Each reference below states what it supports and where its scope stops.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2
Recommendation published October 5, 2023; corrected December 12, 2024
The technical standard ClearAccess uses as its current design and testing target. It organizes testable success criteria under four principles: perceivable, operable, understandable and robust.
Scope note: WCAG is a technical standard. Meeting a WCAG conformance level does not, by itself, decide every legal obligation.
Read on World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)Source reviewed September 27, 2026
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference)
Living reference for WCAG 2.2
A filterable reference connecting WCAG success criteria with techniques and common failures. It is useful when planning, building and reviewing a website.
Scope note: Techniques are informative ways to meet criteria; they are not the only possible methods.
Read on W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)Source reviewed September 27, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA
March 18, 2022
General federal guidance explaining why website accessibility matters under the Americans with Disabilities Act and describing barriers that can prevent equal access.
Scope note: This guidance does not set one technical standard for every private business. A qualified legal adviser should assess obligations for a specific organization.
Read on U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSource reviewed September 27, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Fact Sheet: New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps
Rule published April 24, 2024; compliance dates extended in 2026
The rule establishes WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard for web content and mobile apps provided by state and local governments.
Scope note: This is a Title II rule for state and local government entities. It is not a general rule for private small businesses.
Read on U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSource reviewed September 27, 2026
U.S. Federal Trade Commission
FTC Approves Final Order Requiring accessiBe to Pay $1 Million
April 22, 2025
The final order addressed unsupported claims that an automated product could make any website WCAG-compliant. It is a useful reminder to ask what evidence supports a broad accessibility claim.
Scope note: This historical enforcement matter concerns particular claims and facts. It is not a prediction about another product or business.
Read on U.S. Federal Trade CommissionSource reviewed September 27, 2026
Reusable guides
Learn how evidence becomes practical work
Read source-backed guidance and historical case summaries.
article
What an accessibility assessment can—and cannot—tell you
A plain-language guide to evidence, scope and the limits of automated checks.
Read What an accessibility assessment can—and cannot—tell youmethodology
Assessment methodology template
A reusable framework for defining scope, evidence, findings and retesting.
Read Assessment methodology templatesample report
Fictional accessibility assessment report
An HTML example documenting scope, findings, remediation and retesting.
Read Fictional accessibility assessment reportcase summary
National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix
In 2012, a federal district court allowed an ADA Title III claim about captioning for an online streaming service to proceed. In October 2012 the parties entered a consent decree in which Netflix denied the allegations. As agreed settlement obligations, the decree provides $755,000 for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs and $40,000 to NAD for monitoring compliance. These were negotiated settlement terms, not damages, a government fine or a contested judgment of liability.
Read National Association of the Deaf v. Netflixcase summary
National Federation of the Blind and United States v. H&R Block
A 2014 court-entered consent decree resolved allegations about access to H&R Block's website and online tax-preparation product. It required defined accessibility work and reporting. The decree required H&R Block to pay $45,000 to the two individual plaintiffs ($22,500 each) and a $55,000 civil penalty to the United States. A consent decree is a negotiated settlement: H&R Block denied the allegations and liability, and the payments were agreed terms rather than a contested judgment that the allegations were proven.
Read National Federation of the Blind and United States v. H&R Block
A practical way to use these sources
Understand the standard
Use WCAG and its supporting material to define testable accessibility requirements.
Assess the real journey
Review important tasks, content and states before drawing conclusions about a site.
Get specific advice
Ask a qualified legal adviser to interpret obligations for a particular organization.
Keep claims tied to evidence.
A useful review records what was tested, what was found and what remains outside the scope.