Forgotten Accessibility in Specifications: Who Pays the Bill?
Your contractor delivers the website. Six months later, the DGCCRF audits you. The site is not compliant with the European Accessibility Act. You reread the contract: the word "accessibility" doesn't appear in it. The contractor has no obligation to fix anything. You pay for compliance yourself.
According to the IBM Systems Sciences Institute, fixing a defect after production costs 4 to 5 times more than during the design phase, and up to 100 times more in maintenance.
Five clauses in your specifications are enough to avoid this scenario.
Avoid paying in place of the contractor
#What are the risks if your specifications don't mention accessibility?
A specification without an accessibility clause transfers 100% of the risk to you, the client. If you didn't require compliance, the contractor has no obligation to deliver it. You pay for the website, then you pay for the fixes.
The WebAIM Million 2025 report analyzed one million homepages: nearly 95% had detectable accessibility errors, averaging 51 errors per page. Out of 20 randomly selected sites, 19 have problems. Yours probably does too.
The cost of inaction goes beyond technical correction. Two penalty regimes overlap in France:
| Regime | Penalty | Enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting obligations (Law 2005-102, Ordinance 2023-859) | €25,000 per online service per year | ARCOM |
| EAA Compliance (Law of March 9, 2023, Decree 2023-931) | €7,500 per violation (€15,000 for repeat offenders) and €3,000/day fine (capped at €300,000) | DGCCRF |
These penalties are cumulative: a company can be sanctioned under both regimes simultaneously.
This isn't theoretical. In November 2025, ApiDV and Droit Pluriel associations filed emergency injunctions against Auchan, Carrefour, E.Leclerc, and Picard Surgelés for inaccessible websites and apps. According to the Digital Accessibility Observatory, only 3.4% of major French company websites were accessible in 2025. Retailers had shown "little significant progress and a degree of indifference" after an initial warning in July 2025.
Your SME isn't Auchan. But the EAA applies to every company with more than 10 employees or revenue exceeding €2 million. And DGCCRF investigations can be triggered by reports via SignalConso: any user can report a problem.
As Karl Groves, accessibility expert and founder of Tenon, summarizes: "Prevention of problems is the best way to save money. Once lawyers get involved, all paths lead to the same place, and it's an expensive place."
Prevention starts in the specifications.
EAA and web accessibility: what changes for your business in 2026
#The applicable standard: first clause to lock in
Without a named standard in the contract, "the site must be accessible" means nothing legally. Which standards? Which level? The contractor can deliver anything and claim it's "accessible".
RGAA 4.1 contains 106 control criteria spread across 13 themes and verifies compliance with the 50 success criteria of WCAG 2.1 levels A and AA.
The EAA requires full compliance, not a partial minimum level. Article 4 of Directive 2019/882 states that products and services must meet accessibility requirements defined in Annex I. Compliance is binary: compliant or non-compliant, with exceptions only for disproportionate burden.
Your specifications should reflect this requirement:
"The contractor commits to delivering a product compliant with RGAA 4.1 (full compliance, AA level), as defined by Decree No. 2019-768 of July 24, 2019. If the standard evolves during the project, the version in effect at delivery shall apply."
This clause names the standard, sets the compliance level, and manages regulatory evolution.
#Contractor obligations: what must be guaranteed
The contractor must commit to results, not just effort. Require an accessibility contact in the team, integration of criteria from design, and verifiable proof of expertise.
Most contractors promise accessibility in their commercial response. Few actually deliver it. Access42 says it plainly: "All agencies and consulting firms are still far from mastering digital accessibility, despite what polished commercial pitches might suggest."
The DesignGouv guide from DINUM is direct: "If accessibility is not considered, neither is the offer, because it doesn't comply with legislation."
Your contractor says: "We'll do accessibility at the end." This is the most expensive approach. Greg Williams from Deque Systems documents this: companies that discover accessibility late are condemned to a reactive correction cycle. Integrating accessibility from the start is the only way to sustainably reduce costs.
The Luxembourg government uses a telling comparison: "It's far more expensive to add an elevator to an existing building than to plan for it from the start in the design." Digital accessibility is the same principle.
The wording for your specifications:
"The contractor designates an accessibility contact in the project team. It integrates accessibility criteria from the design phase (mockups, prototypes) and at each development stage. It provides proof of team competence in digital accessibility (completed training, certifications, previous compliant projects)."
#Acceptance criteria: measurable requirements, not wishes
"The contractor guarantees website accessibility" is legally useless: no threshold, no standard, no verifiable criteria. If the contractor delivers a site with 80 errors and your contract just says "accessible," you have no leverage.
RGAA 4.1 defines 106 criteria spread across 13 themes: images, frames, colors, multimedia, tables, links, scripts, required elements, structure, presentation, forms, navigation, consultation. A full audit checks more than 250 control points.
Three example formulations — adapt them to your project:
Start by setting a quantified threshold. Specify in an appendix which pages will be audited.
"RGAA compliance rate of 90% or higher on the representative sample defined in the appendix."
Then list criteria that admit no exceptions. These are points that make the site unusable for people with disabilities.
"Zero blocking errors on the following criteria: text alternatives (criterion 1.1), forms (theme 11), keyboard navigation (criterion 12.6), contrast (criterion 3.2), heading structure (criterion 9.1)."
And require real testing with a screen reader on journeys that matter to your users.
"Testing with screen reader (NVDA and Firefox) on the 3 primary user journeys without blocking: homepage to product page, registration and login, checkout or contact form."
The difference between "the site must be accessible" and these three clauses? The first is an intention. The other three are verifiable obligations in court.
#Penalties: the lever that makes things move
Without a penalty clause, the contractor has no incentive to fix accessibility problems after delivery. You can spot defects, report them, document them. Without financial leverage, corrections go to the bottom of the pile.
French law regulates penalty clauses through Article 1231-5 of the Civil Code (from the February 10, 2016 reform). The penalty clause sets in advance the lump sum owed by the contractor for breach. Judges can reduce or increase the penalty if it's "manifestly excessive or trivial." The amount must be proportionate to foreseeable harm.
As stated by Domanski, a firm specializing in IT contracts: "poor drafting of the penalty clause can jeopardize contractual balance". Penalties must be progressive and capped.
Three formulations:
The first clause sets the deadline. Without a written date limit, nothing moves.
"If non-compliance is found at acceptance, the contractor makes corrections at its own cost within 15 business days."
The second prevents procrastination. A daily penalty makes correction a priority.
"Beyond this deadline, a penalty of €500 per business day of delay applies, capped at 10% of the total contract amount."
The third protects you in case of regulatory inspection. It's often the least known, and the most useful.
"In case of administrative sanctions (ARCOM, DGCCRF) attributable to contractor failure to meet the accessibility requirements defined in the contract, the contractor bears financial responsibility up to the total contract amount."
A DGCCRF audit finds non-compliance? With these clauses, the contractor corrects at its cost. Without them, you pay twice.
#Maintenance over time: accessibility doesn't stop at delivery
Each content update can introduce new barriers. The marketing team adds a carousel, a new form, a video without captions. Six months after delivery, the compliant site is no longer so.
The Luxembourg government and DesignGouv document this: without a maintenance process, compliance inevitably degrades.
Legal responsibility remains with the client, not the contractor. You must contractually guarantee maintenance.
The wording:
"The contractor guarantees maintenance of the compliance level for 12 months after final delivery. Any addition of functionality or content update undergoes accessibility review before production release. The contractor commits to correcting any compliance regression found during this guarantee period at no cost."
Without this clause, each website change can create new barriers. No one notices until the next audit. Or until the next SignalConso report.
#How to verify compliance without breaking the budget?
By combining three verification levels: automated scan at each delivery, manual testing on key journeys, full RGAA audit before production. Ordering a full audit for every delivery milestone isn't realistic: an audit costs between €2,000 and €10,000 depending on site complexity, up to €15,000 for very complex sites.
#Level 1: automated scan at each delivery milestone
Fast, low cost. But beware: the UK Government Digital Service study tested 13 automated tools against 142 deliberately introduced barriers. The best tool detected 40% of barriers. Common free tools (WAVE, axe) detect between 20 and 30%. Out of 10 accessibility errors on your site, free tools find 2 or 3.
Tools like Includdy detect more errors than free tools and provide detailed correction guides for each identified issue. Scanning a page takes 5 seconds. You can require in your specifications that the contractor provide an Includdy compliance report at each delivery milestone.
#Level 2: manual testing on key journeys
With a screen reader (NVDA or VoiceOver) on primary user journeys. This level requires good accessibility expertise, unless you use a tool that guides testing step by step. Includdy accompanies manual testing step by step, even without prior accessibility expertise.
#Level 3: full RGAA audit before production
By a certified auditor. Reserved for major deliveries or production launch. Includdy offers RGAA audits conducted by certified auditors at more accessible rates than traditional firms.
| Level | When | Indicative cost | What it detects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Automated scan | Each delivery | Included in tool | 20 to 40% of errors |
| Guided manual testing | Major deliveries | Internal time | Blocking user journeys |
| Full RGAA audit | Production launch | €3,000 to €15,000 | Full compliance with 106 criteria |
The contractor delivers an intermediate batch. You run a scan that detects 12 blocking errors. You refuse the delivery and request corrections, without having spent €10,000 on an audit.
#Checklist to forget nothing
Integrating accessibility into specifications isn't a six-month project. Five concrete actions are enough to secure your next project.
- Name the standard: add the RGAA 4.1 clause, full AA compliance, to your specification template
- Require proof of competence: ask the contractor for a portfolio of compliant projects, verifiable certifications or references
- Define measurable acceptance criteria: compliance rate, blocking criteria, screen reader testing journeys
- Plan automated scanning at each delivery: integrate verification into your acceptance process
- Schedule a compliance audit before production: budget €3,000 to €15,000 depending on complexity
You're launching a redesign project. You take this checklist, adapt it to your context, integrate it into the specifications. Time needed: two hours. Cost of non-compliance? €7,500 per violation, and a website to rebuild.
Two hours of writing or €7,500 in fines. Do the math.
Web accessibility: what does it cost, what does it return
To verify deliverable compliance continuously, try Includdy: scan in 5 seconds, detailed correction guides, and RGAA compliance reports ready to integrate into your acceptance process.
Frequently asked questions
Does accessibility in specifications also concern mobile applications?
Yes. The EAA covers digital services broadly, including mobile applications. If your project includes a mobile application, reference the EN 301 549 standard in addition to RGAA in your specifications.
What should you do if the contractor claims disproportionate burden to refuse corrections?
Disproportionate burden is a regulated exception: the contractor must document why compliance represents excessive effort. A simple claim is insufficient. In a private contract, your contractual clause takes precedence over this exception.
Can the contractor use an accessibility overlay to achieve compliance?
No. Overlays fix nothing at the source and do not make a site compliant with RGAA or EAA. The first French lawsuits targeted sites that had such solutions. This is a red flag about the contractor's actual expertise.
How can you verify that the contractor is truly competent in accessibility?
Request concrete evidence: previous projects that underwent RGAA audit, team members with verified training (Opquast certifications, Access42 or equivalent training), and documented methodology for integrating accessibility into the development cycle.
Are accessibility-related lawsuits common in the United States?
Very. In 2024, 8,800 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in the United States, or 24 per day. 77% targeted e-commerce sites. Average cost per case: between $55,000 and $270,000. The first French lawsuits in November 2025 show the trend is confirmed in Europe.
