ADA Title II compliance: what the web rule requires

What the rule requires, and who it covers

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act covers state and local governments. In April 2024 the Department of Justice published a rule setting a technical standard for their web content and mobile apps: WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The rule sits at 28 CFR part 35, subpart H. The Department’s fact sheet and the regulation text are on ada.gov, and the full rule is in the Federal Register.

It applies to every public entity under Title II: states, counties, cities, public schools and universities, transit agencies, courts, libraries, emergency services, and special districts such as water or park boards. It covers content the entity provides itself and content provided for it by a contractor or under another arrangement. A vendor is not covered directly, but its customer is, so the customer will ask for proof.

Private businesses fall under Title III, which has no web rule naming a standard. If you sell to government, what matters is what your customer must meet, and that is this rule.

The dates

The 2024 rule took effect on 24 June 2024. On 20 April 2026 the Department published an interim final rule that moved both compliance dates back by a year. Among its reasons it said it had overestimated how far technology had advanced, and that tools such as generative AI do not yet reliably fix inaccessible content at scale. The dates now stand as follows.

• An entity with a total population of 50,000 or more: 26 April 2027.
• An entity with a total population under 50,000, or any special district government: 26 April 2028.

The extension changed no requirement, and the Department said the general duty under Title II to provide accessible services continues meanwhile. It also said it may propose further changes. Check ada.gov for the current dates before you rely on these.

WCAG 2.1 AA in plain words

WCAG 2.1 is a set of testable rules for web content from the W3C. Level AA means the Level A and AA rules together, 50 success criteria. They cover text alternatives for images, captions for video, enough colour contrast, everything working from a keyboard, visible focus, clear labels and error messages, and pages that still work when zoomed. Every one is explained in our WCAG guide.

WCAG 2.2 keeps every A and AA criterion from 2.1 except 4.1.1 Parsing, which the W3C made obsolete, and adds six. So a site that meets 2.2 AA meets 2.1 AA too. Auditing against 2.2 and reporting against 2.1, the version the rule names, is a sound choice. Read WCAG 2.2 AA in plain words for what changed.

Two provisions give some room. A conforming alternate version, a separate accessible version of a page, is allowed only where technical or legal limits stop the entity making the page itself conform. Equivalent facilitation lets an entity use other designs or methods if it can show they give substantially equal or greater accessibility and usability. Both are narrow, and the burden of proof is on the entity.

The exceptions

Five kinds of content need not meet WCAG 2.1 AA, as the rule states them. Each is narrower than it sounds, and the entity must still provide the content in an accessible form when a person with a disability needs it to use a service.

• Archived web content. It must predate the compliance date or be reproduced from older material, be kept only for reference, research or record keeping, sit in a clearly marked archive area, and be unchanged since archiving. All four must hold.
• Preexisting conventional electronic documents. PDFs, word processing, presentation and spreadsheet files posted before the compliance date, unless they are currently used to apply for, gain access to or take part in the entity’s services.
• Content posted by a third party, unless under a contract, licence or other arrangement with the entity.
• Individualised, password-protected documents. Conventional electronic documents about a specific person, their property or their account, which are password-protected or otherwise secured.
• Preexisting social media posts: posts the entity made before its compliance date.

Labelling a folder “archive” does not make its contents archived, and a PDF form people still use to renew a permit is not preexisting in the rule’s sense. Record why you think an exception applies.

What evidence a public body should keep

The rule asks for conformance, not a certificate. A complaint, a Department enquiry or your own board will ask what you did and what you found. Keep three things.

• Audit records. What was tested, against which WCAG version, on which pages and dates, with the evidence for each result. A result without evidence is an opinion.
• Decisions. Who looked at each item that needed judgement, what they decided and why, and who signed off. Keep the reasons for any exception or equivalent facilitation you claim.
• A plan. What is still open, who owns it, and when it will be fixed. A dated plan with steady progress is a strong position.

Vendors should keep the same records for the products they supply, and expect to be asked for a conformance report in the VPAT structure at procurement.

Where automated testing helps, and where a person is needed

Automated testing is good at the rules that can be measured: missing text alternatives, colour contrast, unlabelled form fields, broken heading structure, pages that cannot be used from a keyboard. It can cover every page of a large site, repeat after each change, and point at the exact element.

It cannot settle the rules that turn on meaning. Whether an alt text describes the image well, whether captions are accurate, whether an error message says how to fix the problem, and whether a page reads in a sensible order are questions for a person. An honest automated result has four states: passed, failed, not applicable, and needs a person to decide. A tool that reports only pass and fail is hiding the last one. The Department’s extension notice itself points to the limits of automated tools, so do not rest a compliance position on one.

How Dreven helps

• Dreven checks your pages against WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA and shows you every result with its evidence: where it is, what was found and why.
• Results that need judgement go to a person. Your reviewer decides each one, records the reason and signs. Decision and evidence stay together on the record.
• It drafts your conformance report in the VPAT 2.5Rev structure, with open items listed, so you hold the audit record, the decisions and the plan.
• It runs again after fixes, so you can show progress against your date.

Dreven does not make anyone compliant, and no tool can. It finds problems and gives your people the evidence to decide and fix them. Whether your content meets the rule is a judgement for you and your advisers.

Questions people ask

What is the ADA Title II web accessibility rule?

It is a Department of Justice rule, published in April 2024 at 28 CFR part 35 subpart H, requiring the web content and mobile apps of state and local governments to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA. It covers content the entity provides itself and content provided for it under a contract or other arrangement. It took effect on 24 June 2024, with compliance dates set by population.

What is the ADA Title II deadline?

Entities with a total population of 50,000 or more must comply by 26 April 2027. Entities under 50,000, and all special district governments, must comply by 26 April 2028. The Department of Justice set these dates in an interim final rule on 20 April 2026, a year later than the original dates. Check ada.gov for any later change.

Does ADA Title II apply to private businesses or vendors?

No. Title II covers state and local governments. Private businesses fall under Title III, which has no web rule naming a standard. A vendor that builds or hosts a site for a public body is not covered directly, but its customer must meet the rule, so the vendor is usually asked to show that its product conforms, often with a VPAT-based report.

Does WCAG 2.2 AA satisfy the ADA Title II rule?

The rule names WCAG 2.1 Level AA. WCAG 2.2 AA includes every Level A and AA criterion from 2.1 except 4.1.1 Parsing, which the W3C made obsolete, and adds six more. So content that meets 2.2 AA meets 2.1 AA as well. Many bodies audit against 2.2 and report against 2.1, the version the rule cites.

Can a tool or overlay make my site ADA Title II compliant?

No. A tool can find problems, show evidence and track fixes. People fix the problems, and a person decides each result that needs judgement. The Department of Justice has noted the limits of automated tools, and the FTC has acted against claims that a product makes a site compliant. Treat any such claim with care.

Is this page legal advice?

No. It explains the rule in plain words and links to the primary sources on ada.gov and in the Federal Register. Whether and how the rule applies to your entity, and whether an exception covers a piece of content, are questions for your legal adviser.