AGENCY EXPOSURE

3% of Agency Executives Are Aware of What Comes Next.

How changing accessibility laws are creating automatic liability for agencies, and why the window for action is closing.

ARTICLE ID ART/2025/AX/0024
UPDATED 28 September 2025
AUTHOR David Milton
READ TIME 5 min

3% Awareness, 97% Exposure

3% of agency executives understand how fast accessibility legislation is changing. Most still believe that accessibility responsibility sits with the client, or that carefully worded terms and conditions protect them from risk. Both assumptions are now wrong.

Across new and updated regulations, a single idea appears again and again: vendor accountability. Lawmakers have recognized that digital suppliers, not clients, are often the ones making or overstating compliance claims. To address this, the latest laws now include clauses that remove the ability for vendors to hide behind their own terms and conditions. The intent is clear: responsibility cannot be contracted away.

Agencies, CMS providers, and digital suppliers are becoming ever more accountable, and with new laws legally accountable, when clients' websites or online products fail accessibility requirements. Accessibility has shifted from a design preference to a regulated standard, and that change is already written into law across several key US states. The same model is spreading internationally, from the EEA to Asia-Pacific.

01Where the law now sits

Accessibility requirements have been part of US procurement policy for decades, but the latest state-level updates explicitly extend responsibility to service providers.

Region / LawFocus & liability shift
California
AB 1757

Requires WCAG 2.1 AA conformance for websites; presumption of non-compliance when failed.

Vendors directly liable for inaccessible sites.

Source: AB 1757 text · Senate analysis · DWT briefing

Virginia
HB 2541

Defines digital accessibility within ICT procurement.

Suppliers and agencies both accountable.

Source: LIS text · BarrierBreak · Allyant

New York

Rulings require accessibility for state and municipal suppliers.

Vendors responsible for digital discrimination.

Source: NY State accessibility standards, https://its.ny.gov/web-standard-accessibility (this is the original link - but it is no longer working)

Colorado
Accessibility Law

Applies to all state/local suppliers delivering digital services.

Vendors accountable under procurement rules.

Source: Colorado HB21-1110

European
Accessibility Act

Harmonizes accessibility obligations across the EU.

Shared liability between operators and service providers.

Source: EEA overview, https://commission.europa.eu/accessibility-act_en (this is the original link - but it is no longer working)

United Kingdom

Expected to align with the EEA within the next reform cycle.

Supplier accountability likely to mirror the EU.

Source: Gov UK accessibility requirements

South Korea /
Singapore / Australia

Accessibility tied to procurement standards.

Vendors must meet WCAG to qualify.

Source: Microassist blog

02Why agencies are now in the firing line

These laws were created because agencies and technology partners have repeatedly over-promised compliance. Clients relied on those claims and were left exposed. The law now treats the supplier as a party to accessibility failure unless that supplier explicitly states that compliance is not included. Even then, such disclaimers offer little protection, as contract language rarely overrides civil-rights legislation.

03Retrospective risk

While current rules apply to new contracts, legislators are debating how far back accountability can reach. Some discussions propose retrospective enforcement covering prior projects by one, three, or even five years. Class actions are already being discussed where clients share common vendor claims.

04The global echo

The same legislative structure is emerging globally. The European Accessibility Act sets shared liability, the UK is expected to follow, and similar policies are already embedded in Asia-Pacific procurement frameworks. Privacy enforcement is following a similar path, extending accountability to vendors who manage user data.

Terms and conditions that once felt watertight now offer little protection. Accessibility law prioritizes user rights. If an agency's work prevents equal access, courts side with the user, not the supplier's contract. The safest route is transparency: make clear whether compliance is provided, and prove it where claimed.

06Risk, exposure & evidence

Accessibility is the first area where supplier liability is tested, but privacy and data control will follow. Risk now sits in proposals, RFPs, and statements of compliance. Agencies must maintain audit trails and evidence to defend their position.

07What agencies should do now

StepAction
1Audit your exposure and review all contracts mentioning compliance.
2Validate each claim of accessibility.
3Maintain documentation and testing records.
4Align proposal language with deliverable proof.
5Establish continuous oversight and evidence reporting.

08How The Agency Revenue Radar supports awareness & oversight

The Agency Revenue Radar provides clear visibility of accessibility exposure across client estates. It identifies where compliance has been promised but not verified, and tracks progress over time. The Agency Revenue Radar acts as both auditing evidence and ongoing oversight, giving agencies the certainty they need.

The reality

Liability is written into law. Ignorance is not a defense. Only 3% of agencies understand this change, leaving 97% at risk. Agencies that act now can prepare. Those that wait may face difficult questions about why they did not.

References & sources

The sources below are separated between the legal updates and commentary that frame the change, the US state legislation itself, and the international frameworks following the same path.

Legal updates & commentary

Converge Accessibility: Legal Update, September 2025The September 2025 legal update covering the current state of accessibility legislation and enforcement.
Converge Accessibility blogOngoing commentary and case tracking on digital accessibility law.
Microassist: Jack McElaney blog postsCommentary on accessibility in procurement, including the Asia-Pacific frameworks referenced above.

US state legislation

California AB 1757 text (Legiscan)The bill text requiring WCAG 2.1 AA conformance, with a presumption of non-compliance when failed.
California Senate Judiciary analysis of AB 1757The Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis of the bill and its liability provisions.
DWT briefing on AB 1757Law-firm briefing on what the bill means for website accessibility liability.
Virginia HB 2541 text (LIS)The bill text defining digital accessibility within ICT procurement.
BarrierBreak commentary on HB 2541Commentary describing the bill as a landmark in accessible procurement.
Allyant article on HB 2541Analysis of the bill's passage, with expert comment on supplier accountability.
New York State accessibility standards, https://its.ny.gov/web-standard-accessibility (this is the original link - but it is no longer working)The state standard requiring accessibility from state and municipal suppliers.
Colorado HB21-1110The digital accessibility law applying to state and local suppliers delivering digital services.

International frameworks

European Accessibility Act overview, https://commission.europa.eu/accessibility-act_en (this is the original link - but it is no longer working)The European Commission's overview of harmonized accessibility obligations across the EU.
Gov UK accessibility requirementsUK guidance on accessibility requirements for public sector websites and apps.
All articles