Towards an Accessible Digital Single Market: A Critical Analysis of the European Accessibility Act

The belief in barrier-free and equitable access to the Internet and digital sphere is at the core of the historicity of the Internet. However, this foundational principle remains conspicuously unrealized. Millions of individuals find themselves systematically excluded from digital participation, not due to inherent limitations, but rather because these spaces have failed to incorporate universal design principles from their inception.

• How is a person with color vision deficiency expected to differentiate between elements when chromatic distinction serves as the sole differentiating characteristic?
• How might a visually impaired individual navigate digital applications when screen-reading technologies cannot interpret poorly structured interface components? - How can elderly users engage in e-commerce when attempts to magnify content compromises the structural integrity of the website? These are not theoretical abstractions, but daily obstacles encountered by large segments of the population in their digital interactions.

This issue grows increasingly urgent as the digital sphere expands exponentially. Having access to this space is not merely a practicality, but an essential component of daily life. From e-commerce to tax filing to healthcare, the digital space is everywhere.

It is based on this dual realization: the pervasiveness of digital exclusion and the growing digitalization of the economy, that the European Union enacted directive (EU) 2019/882, the European Accessibility Act (EAA), in 2019. The legislation aims to improve the accessibility of a comprehensive range of products and services in EU countries, thereby attempting to reconcile the Internet's founding promise of universal access with the discriminatory status quo.

The European Accessibility Act: Background, Framework, and Scope #

The EAA is not the first accessibility-related piece of legislation. In 2016, the Web Accessibility Directive (directive (EU) 2016/2102) already introduced obligations for public sector actors, including accessibility transparency, training, and accessibility improvement.
Still, digital accessibility is now at a watershed with the introduction of the EAA. The law introduces obligations for a very wide array of products and services and for both private and public actors. Furthermore, where the law only required transparency hitherto, the EAA now imposes strict and absolute conformity.

It is already worth noting at this stage of our analysis the importance of the discursive framework in which the EAA is set. The "spirit of the law" (rather than a strictly textual approach) characterizes accessibility as a non-tariff barrier, hindering the true potential of the EU single market. Divergent accessibility standards across member states are conceptualized primarily as impediments to the free circulation of goods and services. It is this framework, aimed at protecting the market from the polity at any price, that takes precedence here.

Disability is not a social issue but a consumer one. This market-oriented framing presents both advantages and limitations.
On one hand, compliance is facilitated through well-defined, EU-wide criteria that create regulatory certainty for economic operators.
On the other hand, inclusion remains circumscribed to market-related activities, potentially neglecting comprehensive social inclusion beyond consumer contexts.

A broad yet restricted scope

The directive covers multiple products and services (see article 2). Yet, what is particularly striking is that it does not just apply to isolated designed objects, but rather to entire supply chains. Where the directive requires accessibility, it extends beyond the primary product to encompass all elements that support its function (including related products, instructions, packaging, and aftersales support.)

The products covered by the EAA are:

• consumer general purpose computer hardware systems and operating systems for those hardware systems,
• a wide range of self-service terminals,
• consumer terminal equipment with interactive computing capability used for electronic communication services and for audiovisual media services,
• and e-readers (we will spare readers further immersion in such bureaucratic poetry).

Furthermore, the directive also precises that only products put on the market after June 28, 2025, are covered. Products commercialized before that date need not be recalled, but manufacturers should already be adapting production chains to ensure new products meet accessibility requirements.

For services, things are a bit vaguer. The list of services covered is well-defined and includes:

• electronic communication services,
• services providing access to audiovisual media services,
• some transportation services related elements,
• consumer banking services,
• e-books,
• and e-commerce services.

However, the timeline provides uncertainty as the law only precises that services provided after June 28, are covered. Does this requirement extend to already-existing service offerings that continue after this date or does it only apply to new services? This ambiguity remains unresolved and will require clarification from national administrative authorities.

Compliance without Clarity: The EAA’s Implementation Framework #

Even if the goal of the EAA is relatively clear, its implementation framework lags. This regime of obligations can be split between the common legal distinction of first order (or, substantive) and second order (or procedural) obligations.

Substantive obligations

The directive sets accessibility requirements that products and services need to meet. Such requirements are laid out in Annex I to the directive.
However, they do not really constitute actionable guidelines (they often present as vague or too broad). Consequently, the text also provides for the use of harmonized European norms. Meeting such norms suffice to demonstrate compliance with EU legislation.

These harmonized norms offer substantial benefits. Beyond providing clear guidelines, they significantly reduce compliance risk. Regulatory authorities cannot challenge compliance based on these standards, whereas they could contest individual (inherently semi-subjective) efforts to comply directly with the directive's requirements.

Compliance with harmonized standards thus becomes the only practical path to legal conformity (and for regulators, the only reliable mechanism to enforce implementation). Yet critically, the harmonized standards covering the EAA remain conspicuously absent. Until now, web accessibility was guaranteed by the norm EN 301 549 (PDF file). It has yet to be updated. Furthermore, new norms need to be enacted for physical products and aftersales support covered by the EAA.

No update is expected until March 2026, creating a 9-month compliance vacuum between the June 28, 2025, mandatory implementation date and the availability of definitive compliance standards. This regulatory gap forces organizations into an untenable position: legally required to comply with standards that do not yet exist.

Procedural obligations

The EAA also distributes compliance responsibilities between actors, divided in four categories: manufacturers, importers, and distributors for products, as well as service providers for services. Figure 1 presents such obligations.

Click to view the alternative text

This table presents the various accessibility obligations applicable to different types of economic operators. The table is structured with the types of obligation in rows and the four categories of economic operators in columns: Producer, Importer, Distributor and Service Provider.

Compliance with accessibility requirements is mandatory for producers and service providers.

The conformity assessment procedure and technical documentation are fully required for producers, while importers and distributors have lighter obligations in this area.

A declaration of accessibility is only required from service providers.

Corrective measures in the event of non-compliance are mandatory for all economic players.

Non-compliance registers must be kept for 5 years by producers and importers, while service providers must maintain them for as long as their service is in operation.

Cooperation with the competent authorities and long-term compliance procedures are required of all economic players.

Finally, only service providers are required to set up feedback mechanisms.

A Homogeneous Transposition Mosaic #

Directives are essential tools of EU law but require to be translated into national legal orders, a process known as ‘transposition.' Directives only bind Member states to minimum requirements but do not prevent them from implementing more stringent measures.

In the case of the EAA, the transposition process has been relatively homogeneous, following the harmonizing spirit of the directive. Figure 2 illustrates how different Member States have incorporated the EAA's requirements into their national legal frameworks, highlighting both the consistency in core provisions and the minor variations in implementation timelines and enforcement mechanisms.

Click to view the alternative text

This table compares the transposition of the European Accessibility Directive (EAA) in different countries. The table is organized into six columns, detailing respectively the countries, their transposition status, applicable obligations, supervisory authorities, maximum penalties incurred, and national specificities.

France has transposed the EAA with an extensive interpretation by the DGCCRF, providing for sanctions of up to €75,000 for penalties and €300,000 for penalties. The supervisory authorities are generally Arcom, the DGCCRF and ARCEP. For the banking sector, they are the Banque de France, the AMF and the ACPR.

Luxembourg has also transposed the EAA. Appeals to the OSAPS are open to all. Sanctions of up to €15,000 administrative and €1,000,000 penal are provided for. The OSAPS is in charge of inspections.

Belgium has only partially transposed the EAA, without any specific features, with BIPT as the general authority and administrative penalties of €200,000. For banking and e-commerce services, the Economic Inspectorate monitors the market. Administrative penalties of €8,000 and criminal penalties of €16,000 are provided for.

Slovakia has transposed the EAA with specific temporal limits and administrative sanctions of 30 000 € as a general rule and are imposed by the Slovak Trade Inspection. For telecommunications however, it is up to Teleoff to impose sanctions of up to 3 000 €.

Poland has transposed the EAA and included consumer-related obligations with a sui generis surveillance system and sanctions reaching up to 80 000 zlotys.

Spain has transposed the EAA without specificities, except for its fragmented sectorial surveillance and sanction regime.

Moldova is not yet an EU member and has therefore not transposed the EAA. Legislative work is being done. No additional information is known regarding surveillance and sanctions.

Romania has fully transposed the EAA without specificities. Sectorial authorities control the market and sanctions of up to 3 000 € exist.

Conclusion #

The European Accessibility Act marks considerable progress toward digital inclusion, extending accessibility requirements across products and services throughout their lifecycle.

Yet the EAA embodies critical contradictions. Its market-oriented framework reduces accessibility to a consumer right rather than a social imperative. More immediately problematic is the implementation gap: economic operators face compliance obligations without the harmonized standards necessary to fulfill them.

Far from polished, far from pristine, the EAA nonetheless represents our striving to form a more perfect Union. Its impact will ultimately depend not on aspirational language but on robust enforcement and whether economic operators embrace accessibility as a core design principle rather than a regulatory burden.