Whether you're celebrating a father, grandfather, mentor, or someone whose guidance helped shape your life, a tribute gift to AFB is a meaningful way to recognize their impact. Join us in helping create a future filled with greater possibility and inclusion.
Make a Tribute Gift
A father smiles with his two sons at an AFB event.

June 2026 Comments on DOJ Extension of Web Accessibility Compliance Dates

June 22, 2026

Harmeet K. Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

Submitted via regulations.gov

RE: Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, RIN 1190-AA82 (Docket No. CRT150)

Dear Assistant Attorney General Dhillon:

The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is a national nonprofit that creates equal opportunities and expands possibilities for people who are blind, have low vision, and are deafblind through advocacy, thought leadership, and strategic partnerships. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the extension of compliance dates for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II rule on accessibility of websites and mobile apps.

Inaccessible websites and mobile apps continue to inhibit the equal participation of people who are blind, have low vision, or deafblind in American society. Our 2023 research into digital access barriers revealed that when websites or apps are inaccessible, blind people face longer times to complete tasks, miss information, must rely on other people, have less choice in services, and have less privacy.1 Although 44% of people report using a different website or mobile app to find a workable solution,2 public entities typically require individuals to use a single website or app to access the program, service, or activity. That means inaccessible websites cost individuals time, energy, and sometimes money as they pay other people to accomplish tasks that most sighted people take for granted. And the issue did not end in 2023. In our latest research on how people use AI, one of the most important findings was that AI adoption and effective use of AI is dependent on the accessibility of the platform.3 It doesn’t matter how useful an AI-enabled service or tool is if the platform is inaccessible to blind users.

The extension of compliance dates by one year considers only the perspective of public entities and neglects to consider the costs to people who are blind, have low vision, or are deafblind. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates in its annual American Community Survey that there are more than 8.5 million people who have a vision disability, including nearly 600,000 who are school age and likely to be students in public schools. The National Health Interview Survey estimates that about 18% of adults 18 and over have some difficulty seeing.

The potential costs of lost time and effort are significant factors in the lives of people who are blind. Indeed, in our 2024 follow-up research study into digital access barriers, we found that blind study participants who encountered digital access barriers spent more than half the time completing the task on dealing with the inaccessible barrier.4 Put another way, inaccessible websites and apps mean that people who are blind are forced to spend twice as long completing the task. Given the role of public entities in our lives and the criticality of these services, that is a substantial time cost for students completing homework, parents trying to understand their child’s schooling, workers filing taxes, businesses owners seeking to complete business registrations, older adults seeking services, patients accessing health care appointments and portals, and so many others. Yet, the Department does not consider these costs in extending the deadline, it only considers the “cost savings” for public entities which are funded by taxes paid by the same people struggling to use their websites and apps. As an example, while entities receive additional time to comply, we expect students with disabilities will face an additional year of difficulty accessing their education. This will result in potential lost income over their lifetime or the loss of tuition for classes that are ineffective or must be dropped. For this reason, we urge the Department to reconsider the extension of compliance dates.

From a procedural perspective, and given the cost to millions of Americans, we are concerned that the Department finds that such a delay does not require notice and comment prior to changing the rule. Indeed, the idea that this delay – that will extend harms to millions of Americans without debate – is necessary and in the public interest is simply unreasonable. This rule is decidedly in the public interest of millions of people with disabilities, and those individuals and their families will have to deal with the consequences of further inaccessibility. Moreover, it is unconvincing that the timing is impracticable, given that the Department was aware of efforts to delay the rule well in advance of April 24, 2026. Indeed, the Department cites requests to delay the rule from May 2025; it did not have to wait until April 2026, just days before the rule was set to go into effect, to seek broader public input.

In addition, the Department offers spurious reasoning for the need for the extension. First, the Department claims that it received “new information”5 about the difficulties public entities are facing. This is puzzling because the cited letters either simply ask for a delay without providing further information6 or describe the same difficulties that were anticipated in the comments to the 2024 rule.7 For example, entities raise concerns about expertise, vendors, and budget. All of these concerns were raised through comments on the 2023 NPRM and were considered by the Department. Indeed, the Small Business Administration does not cite new information, rather its 2023 comments, in requesting a further delay.8 In 2024, the Department balanced those concerns against the urgent need for greater access to public services by people with disabilities, leading to the 2- and 3-year compliance dates. Furthermore, the Department itself claims that the public comments would be “materially identical” to the comments considered for the 2024 rule.9 This casts doubt on the assertion that there is actually new information about public entities’ ability to provide accessible websites and apps to people with disabilities.

Second, the Department claims the 2024 final rule is based on “untenable” and “dynamic compliance assessment standards” that “may change at any time without notice.”10 This claim evinces a misunderstanding of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and their publication. The WCAG 2.1, Level A and AA, are a specific standard and are not “dynamic compliance assessments standards.” Indeed, the rule states the exact date and provides two URLs, including a permalink, to which public entities can refer.11 Moreover, to the extent that W3C has made changes to the WCAG 2.1 webpages after 2018, which were not adopted in the rule, those changes are primarily formatting and spelling corrections or minor changes to clarify wording about technology that has changed since 2018. For example, in the 2025 version abstract, it describes the guidelines covering “accessibility of web content on any kind of device (including desktops, laptops, kiosks, and mobile devices),” rather than simply listing a few types of devices.12 The most recent version of the webpage, which is not referred to in the rule, additionally includes a list of changes.13 Substantive changes were made in later versions, namely WCAG 2.2, which the Department explicitly did not adopt.

Additionally, the Department points to elements that provide web professionals with assistance in understanding and applying the standard as being changeable. There is nothing that forces entities to rely on such information although we expect most web professionals for public entities will appreciate the technical assistance in complying with the rule. Such supplemental materials should reduce the difficulties entities face in learning accessible design and development techniques. Therefore, the claim that the standard is somehow dynamically changeable is simply incorrect. The department has specified the standard, named the appropriate version, and provided where to find it in § 35.200(b)(3). Public entities should be able to find the correct version based on that information.

Third, the Department makes a theoretical claim that the right to private action to enforce the ADA could lead to foreign countries manipulating state and local governments. The Department is misreading a reasonable court decision that any individual with a disability who is eligible under the ADA and has standing, including a nonresident, has a right to seek redress for violations. When their rights under the ADA are violated, people with disabilities have limited means of seeking remediation of barriers, and a private right of action is often the means of last resort, given its cost to the individual plaintiff. Seeking to limit access to a private right of action for any individual with a disability unreasonably limits the promise of the ADA for a more accessible society for all people, particularly in the absence of other means of enforcement.

Fourth, the Department claims that the emergence of generative AI supports extending the compliance dates because the technology has not solved all of entities’ accessibility issues. First, generative AI produces inaccessible content for public entities because it is based on training data that contains accessibility barriers. Entities should not over rely on AI to produce content, and the fact that a vendor’s tool is producing inaccessible content does not absolve entities of their responsibility to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the content. Indeed, the 2024 rule is technology neutral and governs the accessibility of the content no matter whether it is made by humans or machines. Instead of creating inaccessible content with generative AI, entities should instead strategically and cautiously deploy AI to reduce the time required to make their web content and mobile apps more accessible. For example, AI can generate a passable first attempt at creating captions that a human can then edit. Such a workflow may save entities time by strategically employing AI as part of an accessibility workflow without relying solely on a technology that has never been proven to create fully accessible content.

The Department also claims that it anticipated the emergence of “advanced technology, such as generative AI,” to remediate “inaccessible content at scale.”14 However, in the 2024 rule, the Department only stated that “there is now more available technology to make web content and mobile apps accessible” than there was during prior attempts at rulemaking.15 Indeed, there are now more accessibility professionals, more guidance documents, more plugins, and more software tools available that can help entities assess and correct their accessibility issues than were available in 2010 or 2016. The absence of a fully automated accessibility solution does not justify extending the rule as there are ample techniques available to individual entities that rely on some combination of human expertise and accessibility software, and the Department was aware of this when it set the compliance dates in 2024.

Finally, the Department offers the confusing claim that entities will not understand that the final rule is different from the proposed rule. It claims that because it responded to commenters through the public notice and comment process, public entities will not understand their obligations published in the 2024 rule. We give the public entities greater credit for their ability to read the final rule and believe that 2 years was sufficient time to understand what the 2024 rule said.

In sum, we do not believe that the Department has sufficiently balanced the interests of people with disabilities and the public entities. This delay is likely to result in ongoing barriers for people with disabilities that cost time and money. We do not believe that the implementation challenges outweigh the benefits of complying with the rule, and in fact, we expect the rule to be leverage for public entities in forcing their vendors to provide them with more accessible content. For these reasons, we oppose the delay in compliance dates.

At the same time, while we oppose the extension of compliance dates, we find most concerning the statement that the Department “plans to engage in future rulemaking processes related to the substantive requirements of the 2024 final rule.”16 The Department should not engage in such rulemaking. As stated in this IFR, the April 2024 rule was the product of several rounds of public input receiving about 900 comments from both people with disabilities and covered entities over 14 years. It considered both the challenges faced by people with disabilities in accessing and participating in state and local government activities as well as the challenges faced by state and local government entities in making websites and applications accessible. Signaling an intention to change the rule’s substantive provisions only encourages some entities or their vendors to further delay making websites and mobiles apps fully accessible to people with disabilities. And this rule, as written, will have substantial economic, political, and social benefits for people with disabilities and their families.

While there are certain to be implementation challenges, we strongly urge the Department not to change the rule substantively. This rule is reasonable, and we seek a rule that can be implemented in good faith, so that people with disabilities have consistent access to digital state and local government services, including education.

We urge the Department not to engage in further rulemaking. Thank you for consideration of these comments. Should you have any questions, please contact me at senyart@afb.org and Sarah Malaier at smalaier@afb.org.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Enyart
Chief Public Policy and Research Officer

Footnotes

1 Silverman, A. M., Baguhn, S. J., Amorosino, B. B., & Carranza, R. R. (2023). Consequences of Access Barriers. Barriers to Digital Inclusion Survey: Digital access barriers for Americans who are blind, have low vision, or are deafblind. American Foundation for the Blind. www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/bdis-series/barriers-digital-inclusion-survey/consequences-access-barriers

2 Id., Access Barriers in Websites and Mobile Apps. www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/bdis-series/barriers-digital-inclusion-survey/access-barriers-web-mobile

3 Silverman, A. M., Whistler, A. L., Shock, A., Heydarian, C. H., Baguhn, S. J., Hanuschock, W. E., Hashimoto, A., Khan, O., & Vader, M-L. (2026). The AI Quagmire: Benefits, Risks, and User Aspirations Through a Disability Lens. American Foundation for the Blind. www.afb.org/AIResearch2

4 “Specifically, participants spent 55% of total task time dealing with digital barriers, and only 45% of that time on the task itself. That means that a task with a digital barrier that takes a sighted person 45 minutes to complete would take 100 minutes, on average, for a blind or low vision person.” Silverman, A. M., Abdolrahmani, A., Baguhn, S. J., Carranza, R. R. & Amorosino, B.

B. (2024). Barriers to Digital Inclusion 2: Documenting digital access challenges for people who are blind or have low vision. American Foundation for the Blind. www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/bdis-series/barriers-digital-inclusion-2/lost-time-and-frustration

5 Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 91 Fed. Reg. 20902, 20905 (April 20, 2026).

6 Letter for Russell T. Vought, Director, OMB, from Ted Mitchell, President, American Council on Education at 2 (May 12, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/​comment/​OMB-2025-0003-8019

7 Advocacy, Small Business' Most Wanted Reform, https://advocacy.sba.gov/​regulatory-reform/​small-businesses-most-wanted-reform/​

8 Letter for Russell T. Vought, Director, OMB, from Chip Bishop, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Nick Goldstein, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration at 10 (May 12, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OMB-2025-0003-8285

9 Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 91 Fed. Reg. 20902, 20909 (April 20, 2026).

10 Id. 20906.

11 28 CFR 35.104 “WCAG 2.1”, 28 CFR 35.200(b)(3), and 28 CFR 35.202(b)

12 Compare W3C. (05 June 2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/ to W3C. (06 May 2025). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

13 W3C. (06 May 2025). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#changelog

14 Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 91 Fed. Reg. 20902, 20907 (April 20, 2026).

15 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 89 Fed. Reg. 31320, 31353 (April 24, 2024).

16 Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 91 Fed. Reg. 20902, 20908 (April 20, 2026).