Beyond Compliance: The Strategic Business Case for Digital Accessibility in the European Union

Why accessibility matters? Two answers easily come to mind.

First, the legal framework is evolving in the EU, becoming increasingly stringent, and businesses do not want to face the legal sanctions associated with violating the law.

The second answer may find its roots in political philosophy. When Amartya Sen advocates for an equality of capabilities, he articulates a framework where true collective freedom requires not just formal rights but the actual ability to participate in society – which accessibility directly aims at bringing about.

Yet, both answers fail to capture the strategic imperative for businesses. Legal compliance represents mere risk avoidance, while philosophical arguments rarely translate to boardroom decisions. However, accessibility implementation timing represents a critical strategic decision that directly impacts both risk exposure and value creation potential for European businesses facing the European Accessibility Act (EAA) implementation. Thus, the compelling case for accessibility emerges when framed as a proactive accessibility strategy rather than a reactive obligation, which fails at creating and capturing business value.

Lessons from US Accessibility Litigation for the EAA Context #

Because of the legal novelty that the EAA represents, the European Union is not yet a fertile ground to assess the consequences of accessibility (or a lack thereof). This situation therefore justifies the use of comparative studies to inform future business decisions and consequences within the EU. To best inform our argument, we rely on both quantitative and qualitative elements drawn from the United States' jurisdiction. The US represents the most mature legal system for digital accessibility, with its cornerstone being the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

The first compelling element relates to the accelerating increase in digital accessibility lawsuits in the US. From 2020 to 2025, UsableNet identifies a 42% increase, from 3,503 cases in 2020 to a projected 4,975 in 2025. This already indicates a growing concern for digital inclusion. Even without relying on complex arguments, the sole digitalization of the economy justifies (at least, in part) such an increase. What can further be argued here is that this digitalization is not restricted and limited to the United States, but rather affects the entire world (with the Global North being at the forefront of this transformation).

Furthermore, the structural differences between the EAA and the ADA frameworks potentially put the EU under greater risk. While the ADA relies on broad terminology without specific implementation standards (limiting evolution to either voluntary compliance or court intervention), the EAA creates a regulatory-driven enforcement mechanism. This system enables both regulatory bodies to directly enforce clear standards and allows civil society organizations to initiate compliance actions through formal reporting channels. Consequently, if regulatory agencies fully exercise their mandate, the EU could experience a proportionally higher volume of accessibility-related enforcement actions than seen in the US litigation model.

The second critical element extends beyond legal considerations to financial market implications. In the U.S., the most important accessibility-related decision is arguably Robbles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC (2019). The lawsuit reached the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case (by denying Domino’s writ of certiorari). In the American common law framework, this was important in that it meant the Supreme Court implicitly concurred with the lower court and in that it set a precedent in accessibility law (that the ADA extends to digital accessibility). Beyond the legal significance, what matters the most here is the market reaction. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, strong volatility hit the Domino’s Pizza stock, with a 4% decrease in their stock value and 617% increase in the stock traded volume. So, what lessons for businesses? Inaccessibility creates uncertainty and has become a risk premium that investors do not want to take. In the EU, despite having different market structures, it is likely to see similar reactions in the upcoming years.

The case for Proactivity #

We learn from the U.S. that inaccessibility will become increasingly risky in the EU. The strategic question for businesses is thus no longer whether to comply, but how: either by proactively anticipating requirements or by reactively responding to enforcement actions.
This distinction represents more than a timing decision and rather fundamentally shapes both risk exposure and value creation potential.

The Reactive Liability

Reactive approaches to accessibility create cascading business liabilities. The immediate and most obvious cost is associated with legal fees. Here, it is neither possible to use comparative methods to better inform the future nor to use previous case law within the EU as it does not exist. Multiple questions remain as to the implementation of sanctions: will the values set by the law be applied for every single violation, for each product, or for the entire firm? Whereas EAA clause (99) explicitly states that penalties must be sufficiently adequate to prevent them from serving as mere alternatives to compliance. This language signals regulatory intent to impose meaningful sanctions rather than token penalties. A prudent risk management approach therefore dictates not waiting for such sanctions to be imposed.

Beyond direct legal costs, market valuation impacts represent a second liability category. The Domino's Pizza case demonstrates how accessibility litigation triggers investor risk reassessment, with the company experiencing a 4% stock devaluation following the Supreme Court's decision. But, even more losses are to be expected. Since a substantial portion of a firm's valuation derives from intangible assets, including reputation, litigation creates compounding negative effects. The public nature of accessibility lawsuits generates adverse publicity that extends beyond the immediate legal outcome.

The third and potentially most damaging liability emerges in customer relationships. The propensity of consumers with disabilities to trigger negative actions and reactions against inaccessible brands is large. Up to 45% of them have already given up on accessing content on a media platform or participating in an event due to a lack of accessibility. Even more worrying, 37% have given up on buying a product or service because its website or mobile application was not accessible (Dentsu - Agepiph study, Dec. 2025 in french). The imperative is clear: waiting means losing customers.

The Proactive Opportunity

Proactive accessibility strategies transform a compliance requirement into a multi-faceted business advantage. First, by definition, being proactive implies being at the forefront of an initiative. For businesses, this means differentiation and increased competitiveness. Such elements are especially relevant as they enable the possibility to capture economic value and to increase revenue. In 2023, the World Economic Forum estimated that the spending power of people with disabilities reached $13 trillion globally. Proactivity means being among the first businesses able to reach that market.

Furthermore, being proactive means overseeing one's own narrative. Everyone now knows that accessibility is a legal imperative. Yet, some will choose to wait for lawsuits to emerge. Others, by adopting a proactive strategy, will be able to capitalize on their accessibility initiatives and make them an inherent part of their brand value and reputation. Why does this matter? Because 45% of consumers are willing to spend more on brands that promote DEI practices and because, as PwC showed in 2022, more than a quarter of investors are willing to accept a lower rate of return on investment from companies that promote eco-friendly and DEI practices.

Conclusion #

The evidence presented demonstrates that accessibility implementation timing represents a critical strategic decision for European businesses facing EAA requirements. The US experience provides a clear preview of both the legal and financial consequences of reactive approaches, while market research reveals the substantial opportunities available to early adopters.

As digital experiences increasingly define competitive positioning, accessibility will continue evolving from a specialized concern to a mainstream business practice. European businesses face a clear choice: wait for enforcement and bear the compounding costs of reactivity, or implement accessibility proactively and transform a compliance requirement into sustainable competitive advantage.