Digital accessibility laws require organizations to make their websites, apps, and online services accessible to people with disabilities. These laws come in three main types. First, there are non-discrimination laws that prevent disability-based exclusion, like the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US or the Equality Act 2010 in the UK. Second, there are laws that target specific industries or government services, such as Section 508 for US federal agencies or the EU Web Accessibility Directive for public sector organizations. Third, there are comprehensive laws that create complete systems for removing barriers, including the European Accessibility Act. Most laws don't spell out specific technical requirements. Instead, they point to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Level AA as the standard for compliance. This creates a common global standard, even though different countries have different laws.
Different countries enforce these laws in different ways. At the time of writing (2025), Singapore has no regulations mandating digital accessibility and only non-binding guidelines exist (e.g., the Digital Service Standards). In the United States, courts decided that the ADA applies to websites, even though the law doesn't specifically mention them. Judges have ruled that websites count as "places of public accommodation," which means they must be accessible.
Government purchasing rules and voluntary standards add to these legal requirements, giving organizations more reasons to make their sites accessible. Many governments only buy from vendors who can prove their products are accessible. This approach spreads accessibility requirements through normal business practices. Companies working in multiple countries face overlapping rules, and they must follow the strictest standard from any country where they operate. These complicated rules, along with the risks of lawsuits, fines, and damage to their reputation, have made digital accessibility a core business requirement rather than just a technical issue.
Enforcement varies by jurisdiction. As noted above, at the time of writing (2025), Singapore has no regulations mandating digital accessibility and only non-binding guidelines exist. Other countries take different approaches. In the United States, enforcement primarily occurs through private litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with plaintiffs arguing that websites are "places of public accommodation." Below are a few notable US cases.
The National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation (2006-2008) case shaped the U.S. accessibility landscape. This 2008 class action settlement agreement resolved a lawsuit brought by the National Federation of the Blind against Target Corporation, which alleged that Target.com violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California disability laws by being inaccessible to blind users using screen-reader software. Under the settlement, Target agreed to make its website accessible to blind users according to specific guidelines and obtain NFB certification by February 2009, pay $6 million into a damages fund for affected California class members (who could receive up to $7,000 each), provide ongoing payments to NFB for monitoring the site's accessibility ($50,000 initially, then $40,000 annually), and maintain these accessibility standards for three years. While Target did not admit liability, this landmark case established important precedents for website accessibility requirements under disability rights laws and represented one of the first major settlements requiring a commercial website to become fully accessible to users with visual disabilities.
The Netflix case (2012) offers another notable example of digital accessibility litigation. The National Association of the Deaf sued Netflix, alleging that its "Watch Instantly" streaming service violated the ADA by failing to provide adequate closed captioning for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers. Under the 2012 consent decree, Netflix agreed to provide closed captions on 100% of its streaming content by September 2014 through phased implementation: 82% at entry of decree, 90% by September 2013, and 100% by September 2014. The company also committed to maintain a searchable list of captioned content until reaching full coverage, caption new content within specific timeframes (initially 30 days, improving to 7 days by 2016), provide customer service training on captioning issues, and pay $755,000 in attorneys' fees plus $40,000 to NAD for monitoring compliance. This four-year consent decree established comprehensive standards for caption quality and completeness while allowing flexibility for technological changes. It marked a significant milestone in digital accessibility law by setting clear requirements for streaming video services to accommodate users with hearing disabilities.
While exclusively outside Singapore, digital accessibility litigation has grown significantly in recent years. This rise stems from heightened awareness among users with disabilities, the increasing importance of digital products in daily life, and growing judicial clarity that digital properties must be accessible. Lawsuits commonly cite issues with keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, and missing video captions. In overseas cases, courts consistently rule that such barriers constitute discrimination under disability rights laws.
Accessibility litigation affects all industries with no sector immune from legal action. High-profile defendants have included major corporations like what we saw above, demonstrating that digital accessibility is a universal business requirement rather than a niche concern. Settlement agreements typically mandate compliance with WCAG Level AA standards. Financial settlements range from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, excluding defense costs.
The accessibility enforcement landscape is evolving with technology. Litigation increasingly targets mobile applications, with courts confirming they fall under accessibility requirements. Emerging technologies, such as virtual reality, augmented reality, and AI-powered interfaces, are beginning to face scrutiny as well. Third-party content and vendor-provided tools now factor into liability determinations, broadening the potential defendant pool. This shift emphasizes that accessibility compliance requires comprehensive attention to all aspects of digital properties.
This lecture note explored the legal frameworks governing digital accessibility. While Singapore currently relies on non-binding guidelines rather than mandatory regulations, other jurisdictions impose stricter accessibility rules and actively enforce them. The United States provides instructive examples through private litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where courts have consistently ruled that digital properties constitute "places of public accommodation" subject to accessibility requirements.