Skip to content
PeekWellThe Handbook
Join now

European Accessibility Act: keyboard and screen reader use

At a glance

EU-10MediumDirective (EU) 2019/882, Arts. 2(2)(f), 4, 13 and 30, Annex I Section III(c); EN 301 549 V3.2.1, clause 9

Peeky looks for accessibility barriers on public pages: missing alt text, unlabelled fields, weak contrast, keyboard traps and a missing page language.

Last checked against the source:

I need to fix thisI need the rule

The rule

The European Accessibility Act applies to a list of services “provided to consumers after 28 June 2025”, and the list includes “e-commerce services” (Art. 2(2)(f)). Article 3(30) defines them as “services provided at a distance, through websites and mobile device-based services by electronic means and at the individual request of a consumer with a view to concluding a consumer contract”. A shop, a booking site or a subscription sign-up page fits. A site that sells nothing to consumers does not, on the wording.

Article 4 requires Member States to ensure that economic operators “only provide services that comply with the accessibility requirements set out in Annex I”. For a website the operative line is Annex I, Section III(c): “making websites, including the related online applications, and mobile device-based services, including mobile applications, accessible in a consistent and adequate way by making them perceivable, operable, understandable and robust”. Section III(b) adds “sufficient contrast” and an alternative presentation for non-text content.

Member States had to apply national laws implementing the Directive from 28 June 2025 (Art. 31(2)). The national text is what an authority applies, so check the law of each country you sell into.

Two limits matter for scoping. Microenterprises that provide services are “exempt from complying” with the Section III requirements (Art. 4(5)); Art. 3(23) defines a microenterprise as an enterprise with fewer than 10 persons and an annual turnover or balance sheet total not above EUR 2 million. And the requirements apply only to the extent that compliance does not bring “a fundamental alteration” or “a disproportionate burden” (Art. 14(1)). A provider relying on this must document an assessment, keep it for five years, and renew it at least every five years (Art. 14(2), (3), (5)).

The technical yardstick is a separate document, EN 301 549. V3.2.1 (2021) states that “conformance with W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) Level AA is equivalent to conforming with all of clauses 9.1 to 9.4 and the conformance requirements of clause 9.6” of the standard, and its foreword says it was prepared to support Directive 2016/2102 on public sector websites. V4.1.1 (2026-09), a Harmonised European Standard prepared under the Commission’s request C(2022) 6456, updates clauses 9, 10 and 11 to align with WCAG 2.2 and adds an Annex A.2 on conformance with Directive 2019/882. Under Article 15 a presumption of conformity attaches only to standards referenced in the Official Journal. We could not confirm at a primary source whether V4.1.1 has been referenced there, so check the Commission’s current list. The PeekWell scan tests against WCAG 2.1 level AA for this check.

There is also an information duty. A provider must explain how the service meets the requirements, and Annex V places that information “in the general terms and conditions, or equivalent document”. On non-conformity, Article 13(4) requires corrective measures and notice to the competent authority. The Directive does not say “accessibility statement”, but such a page is the usual form.

Penalties are for each Member State. They must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”, accompanied by “effective remedial action”, and must take into account “the extent of the non-compliance, including its seriousness” and “the number of persons affected” (Art. 30(2) and (4)). That is why amounts differ by country, and why this article gives none.

What PeekWell checks and how

EU-10 asks one question: are there barriers for keyboard and screen reader users on the public pages the scan visited? The answer comes from the page as a visitor’s browser shows it.

The scan is automated. It opens your key public pages the way a visitor’s browser would and tests each one against WCAG 2.1 level AA. Each barrier is recorded by WCAG success criterion: missing alt text, form fields without labels, text with too little contrast, missing landmarks, keyboard traps and a missing page language. It also notes whether an accessibility statement page exists.

The check leaves out companies in the micro size band, because of the exemption in Article 4(5).

The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited, and the members area when you give it a sign-in, so a basket is outside it unless it’s reachable from there. It doesn’t port-scan, try to get in where it isn’t allowed or run any security test. Automated tests find only part of what a person using a screen reader would run into, and some things they can only mark as uncertain. The report says whether an accessibility statement exists, not whether what it says is accurate. A Passed means the expected behaviour was observed on the pages scanned. It doesn’t say the site complies.

UK-12 and US-06 ask the same question under their own laws.

Why it matters for a company

The Directive has applied since 28 June 2025 and enforcement is only beginning to show. As of 9 October 2026 no decision by an authority against a named company could be confirmed at the authority’s own page. Two French interim court orders in cases brought by two associations were read: one of 4 June 2026 against Carrefour France, and one of 5 May 2026 that dismissed the claims against Auchan E-Commerce France. This section otherwise describes supervision.

The associations apiDV and Droit Pluriel alleged that carrefour.fr and the Carrefour app were not accessible. The judge hearing urgent applications ordered Carrefour France to comply with the accessibility rules of the French Consumer Code, which carry the Directive into French law, with a penalty of 500 euros a day if it has not done so six months after the order. The court declined to order the site and app suspended. It is an interim order, and the text was read as published on the claimants’ site.

On 24 March 2026 the Dutch consumer authority ACM reported results from tests on about 100 of the largest Dutch web shops and the websites of the largest telecom and energy providers. Separately, with Stichting Accessibility, it ran a questionnaire among people with disabilities. It reported that 61 percent of the largest Dutch web shops are not digitally accessible, and that 33 percent of the sites examined had serious problems. It added: “Bedrijven die de ACM aanspreekt en die niet of onvoldoende verbeteringen doorvoeren, riskeren handhaving”, that is, companies the ACM contacts and that make no or too little improvement risk enforcement. It named no company and reported no sanction.

The Swedish authority PTS announced on 3 March 2026 that it was examining 11 more e-commerce services, bringing the number of supervision cases it has opened in this planned supervision to 28. The announcement reports no outcome. PTS’s supervision page lists the tools open to it: a request to remedy a shortfall, an order with or without a penalty payment, and an administrative fine.

Three things follow. Authorities in at least two countries have started with consumer-facing shops. The first step is a request to improve, so a documented plan and visible progress put a company in a different position from one that has done nothing. And Article 13(5) lets an authority ask for “all information necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the service”, so the evidence trail matters as much as the fix.

Smaller companies and larger companies

The size line is the microenterprise exemption: fewer than 10 people and a turnover or balance sheet of no more than EUR 2 million. Above it there is no further threshold, though a documented disproportionate burden assessment under Article 14 can reduce what is expected of a smaller business.

In a small company the site is usually a theme on a hosted shop platform, with plugins added over time. The barriers come from the theme and the content: product photos without descriptions, a newsletter field with only placeholder text, grey text on a pale background, a cookie banner the Tab key cannot reach. Nobody owns accessibility, so nobody has looked. A few template edits can fix a great deal.

In a larger company the work is spread out. The design system, the checkout, the app and the marketing pages belong to different teams and suppliers, and a release in one place can undo a fix in another. Third-party content that the company neither funded, developed nor controls is outside the Directive (Art. 2(4)(d)), but whether an embedded widget falls on that side is a question for an adviser. The likelier gap is process: no tests in the release pipeline, and no record of what was checked and when.

Enforcement cases

Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

The Officer, squinting at a file.

Larger companies

  • Carrefour France

    Tribunal judiciaire de Caen (France), 2026No fine stated; conditional penalty of 500 euros a day

    Two associations, apiDV and Droit Pluriel, alleged that the carrefour.fr site and the Carrefour app were not accessible. In an interim order of 4 June 2026 the court ordered Carrefour France to bring its e-commerce services into line with the accessibility rules of the French Consumer Code, with a penalty of 500 euros a day if it has not done so six months after the order. It declined to order the site and app suspended.

    Read the Tribunal judiciaire de Caen (France) publication about Carrefour France
  • Auchan E-Commerce France

    Tribunal judiciaire de Lille (France), 2026No fine; claims dismissed in interim proceedings

    Two associations, apiDV and Droit Pluriel, alleged that the auchan.fr site and the Auchan app were not accessible to people with a visual impairment. In an interim order of 5 May 2026 the court noted that the site's own accessibility statement rated 13 of 19 sections as having a strong to major impact, and that a 2023 audit found the app's accessibility level fairly low. It held that the turnover threshold of the 2005 disability law still applied alongside the Consumer Code, found no manifest infringement on either ground pleaded, and made no order. The associations have said they are appealing to the Cour d'appel de Douai.

    Read the Tribunal judiciaire de Lille (France) publication about Auchan E-Commerce France

Smaller companies

As of 10 October 2026 no decision by an authority against a named company under the Act could be confirmed at the authority's own page, and no ruling against a smaller business was found. We checked the Dutch ACM, whose accessibility publications report test results without naming a company; the Swedish PTS, whose 28 e-commerce supervision cases have no published outcome; the German MLBF, which has published its supervision strategies and no decision; and the Finnish Traficom, which publishes summaries of accessibility orders and complaint decisions without naming the service provider. The Danish Agency for Digital Government publishes monitoring results for public bodies only. The French court cases brought by apiDV and Droit Pluriel concern large retailers: Carrefour France (order of 4 June 2026), Auchan E-Commerce France (claims dismissed on 5 May 2026, appeal announced), and E.Leclerc and Picard Surgelés, for which the claimants had published no decision by 10 October 2026. Searches covering Irish, Austrian, Belgian, Spanish and Italian authorities and German courts found no published decision naming a company.

How to fix it

  1. Try your own site with the keyboard. Put the mouse away. Press Tab through the home page, a product page and the basket, and note where you cannot reach a control, cannot see where you are, or cannot leave a pop-up. WCAG 2.1.2 asks that focus can always move away, and 2.4.7 asks that the focus indicator is visible.
  2. Give every picture and control a name. Meaningful images need a text alternative (WCAG 1.1.1). Form fields need a visible label tied to the field, not only placeholder text.
  3. Check contrast. WCAG 1.4.3 asks for a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text. A browser’s developer tools show the ratio for any element.
  4. Set the page language. WCAG 3.1.1 asks that the language of each page can be determined by software.
  5. Publish the information the Directive asks for. Add a page saying how the service meets the requirements and how to report a problem, next to your terms and conditions (Annex V). If you rely on disproportionate burden for any part, write the assessment down and set a review date (Art. 14).
  6. Re-scan. Run a scan after each change. The finding for a rule should disappear once the barrier is gone. Then test with a screen reader yourself or with people who use one, because automated tests won’t catch everything.
<label for="email">Email address</label>
<input id="email" name="email" type="email" autocomplete="email">

Whether a given design meets the national law is a question for your legal adviser, and Peeky reports only what it sees.

Questions

Does the European Accessibility Act apply to my website?

It applies if you sell to consumers in the EU and you are bigger than a microenterprise. The Directive covers e-commerce services provided to consumers after 28 June 2025.

A microenterprise has fewer than 10 people and a turnover or balance sheet of no more than 2 million euros. Microenterprises that provide services are exempt from the website requirements (Art. 4(5)).

What does the European Accessibility Act require of a website?

It asks for websites that are perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. That is the wording of Annex I, Section III(c).

The Directive does not name WCAG in its text. The technical yardstick is EN 301 549: V3.2.1 (2021) ties WCAG 2.1 level AA to its clauses 9.1 to 9.4, and V4.1.1 (2026-09) aligns clause 9 to WCAG 2.2. A presumption of conformity attaches only to standards referenced in the Official Journal, so check the Commission's current list. PeekWell's scan runs WCAG 2.1 level AA for this check.

When did the European Accessibility Act start to apply?

On 28 June 2025. Member States had to apply their national laws from that date, and the rules cover services provided to consumers after it.

A transitional period to 28 June 2030 covers products a provider was already using lawfully for a service. Service contracts agreed before 28 June 2025 can run on, but for no more than five years.

Does the European Accessibility Act apply to UK businesses?

It can, when the business offers services to consumers in the EU. The Directive defines a service provider as anyone who provides a service on the Union market or makes offers to consumers in the Union.

A UK business that only serves UK visitors works under the Equality Act instead. UK-12 covers that.

What is the penalty under the European Accessibility Act?

Each country sets its own. The Directive only says penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and come with remedial action (Art. 30).

Authorities look at how serious the shortfall is and how many people it affects. The Dutch ACM has said that companies it contacts and that do not improve enough risk enforcement.

Filed with

The rule

Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act), Arts. 2(2)(f), 3(23), 3(30), 4, 13, 14 and 30; Annex I Section III(c); Annex V

Read the rule (Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act), Arts. 2(2)(f), 3(23), 3(30), 4, 13, 14 and 30; Annex I Section III(c); Annex V)

A case

Carrefour France

Tribunal judiciaire de Caen (France), 2026

Read the decision (Carrefour France)

Your site

Is your website affected? Join now to find out.

Join now

Sources

The law

  1. Directive (EU) 2019/882 of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services, Official Journal L 151, 7.6.2019
  2. France, Consumer Code (Code de la consommation), Article L412-13 on the accessibility of products and services, in force since 11 March 2023
  3. France, Decree No. 2023-931 of 9 October 2023 on the accessibility of products and services to people with disabilities
  4. Germany, Accessibility Strengthening Act (Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz, BFSG), implementing Directive (EU) 2019/882
  5. Sweden, Act (2023:254) on the accessibility of certain products and services
  6. Netherlands, Act implementing the accessibility requirements for products and services (Implementatiewet toegankelijkheidsvoorschriften producten en diensten)

Guidance

  1. ETSI EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03), Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services
  2. ETSI EN 301 549 V4.1.1 (2026-09), Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services
  3. ACM (Netherlands), guidance on the accessibility of e-commerce and electronic communications services
  4. PTS (Sweden), PTS tillsyn av lagkraven
  5. MLBF (Germany), market surveillance strategy for services under the BFSG, as of 8 January 2026
  6. W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Recommendation
  7. W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2, Recommendation
  8. W3C WAI, Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1, Non-text Content
  9. W3C WAI, Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3, Contrast (Minimum)
  10. W3C WAI, Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.2, No Keyboard Trap
  11. W3C WAI, Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1, Language of Page

Decisions and cases

  1. Tribunal judiciaire de Caen, ordonnance de référé of 4 June 2026, apiDV and Droit Pluriel v. Carrefour France (published by the claimants)
  2. Tribunal judiciaire de Lille, ordonnance de référé of 5 May 2026, apiDV and Droit Pluriel v. Auchan E-Commerce France (published by the claimants)

Further reading

  1. Intérêt à Agir, apiDV and Droit Pluriel, press release on the Lille order of 5 May 2026 and the appeal to the Cour d'appel de Douai, 7 May 2026
  2. European Commission, Implementing Decision C(2022) 6456 final of 14 September 2022 (standardisation request M/587)
  3. ACM (Netherlands), Klant met beperking kan bij merendeel grote webwinkels niet terecht, 24 March 2026
  4. PTS (Sweden), PTS granskar ytterligare 11 e-handelstjansters tillganglighet, 3 March 2026

Last checked against the source:

For information only. Not legal advice.