EAA vs ADA: A Side-by-Side Comparison for Companies Selling into Both Markets

If your company sells into both the United States and the European Union, you are already living under two distinct accessibility regimes. The Americans with Disabilities Act has been generating litigation since the 1990s. The European Accessibility Act became enforceable on 28 June 2025. The two laws share a common goal - removing barriers for people with disabilities - but they were built on different legal philosophies, cover different things, and are enforced in fundamentally different ways.

This post maps the two frameworks side by side, explains what each one actually demands of a digital product or service, and ends with the practical punchline: a single, well-run WCAG 2.1 AA programme largely satisfies both.

Not legal advice. This article is an informational overview. Accessibility law is complex and jurisdiction-specific. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on your specific situation.

---

The philosophical divide: civil rights vs. market harmonisation

The ADA, enacted in 1990, is a civil rights statute. Its core logic is non-discrimination: businesses that serve the public must not exclude people with disabilities. The ADA consists of five titles addressing different sectors of society, from employment to public services and accommodations. Title III - the one most relevant to private-sector digital products - prohibits discrimination in "places of public accommodation." The statute predates the web, so courts and the DOJ have had to extend it to websites and apps through interpretation rather than explicit text.

The EAA is something different. Formally Directive (EU) 2019/882, the EAA is EU product and market-harmonisation legislation that establishes uniform accessibility requirements across all 27 Member States. Its purpose is not primarily to protect individual rights through litigation - it is to eliminate the fragmentation caused by 27 different national accessibility rules and create a level playing field in the EU single market. The rights dimension is there (the EAA is grounded in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), but the enforcement mechanism is regulatory, not plaintiff-driven.

That philosophical difference shapes everything downstream: who is covered, what the technical requirements are, and what happens when you fall short.

---

Scope: who and what is covered

ADA Title III (private sector, US)

ADA Title III applies to "places of public accommodation" - a category that courts have increasingly extended to websites and mobile apps, particularly where there is a nexus to a physical location. The US Department of Justice has confirmed in guidance that websites and mobile apps fall under ADA obligations, even though the statute itself does not contain technical web standards. There is no explicit list of covered digital products; coverage depends on case law, which varies by circuit.

Critically, the ADA applies to any business serving US customers, regardless of where the business is headquartered. A European retailer with a US-facing website can receive a demand letter or be named in a lawsuit.

ADA Title II (public sector, US - a recent development)

In April 2024, the DOJ published a final rule under Title II of the ADA requiring state and local governments to make their websites and mobile apps accessible, adopting WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard. Compliance deadlines have since been extended: large entities (population 50,000+) must comply by April 26, 2027; smaller entities and special districts by April 26, 2028. This is significant because it is the first time a US federal rule has codified WCAG 2.1 AA for any class of entity - and it signals the standard DOJ would likely apply to private-sector websites if a Title III rule ever follows.

EAA (private sector, EU)

The EAA takes a different approach: it defines a specific list of covered products and services. Covered sectors include e-commerce platforms, online banking and payment services, electronic communications, audiovisual media services, transport ticketing, self-service terminals, e-readers, and emergency communications. If your digital product or service falls into one of those categories and is offered to EU consumers, you are in scope - regardless of where your company is based.

The EAA applies to any manufacturer, importer, distributor, or service provider placing in-scope products on the EU market or offering in-scope services to consumers within the EU, regardless of whether the business is headquartered inside or outside the European Union. A US SaaS company selling e-commerce software to EU merchants, or a US bank offering accounts to EU residents, is in scope.

One important carve-out: microenterprises with fewer than 10 employees and annual turnover under €2 million are exempt from service requirements, though product requirements still apply - and this exemption does not extend to businesses based outside the EU that serve the EU market.

---

The comparison at a glance

---

Technical standards: closer than they look

This is where the two regimes converge most usefully for compliance teams.

Under the EAA: The EAA references EN 301 549 as the harmonised European standard for ICT accessibility. EN 301 549 incorporates WCAG 2.1 Level AA in its entirety for web content and extends requirements to mobile applications, software, and hardware. There is no ambiguity: WCAG 2.1 AA is the mandatory technical floor for covered web services.

Under the ADA: While the ADA itself does not reference a specific technical standard for private businesses, WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the de facto standard used by courts in Title III cases. The DOJ's 2024 Title II rule formally adopted WCAG 2.1 AA for state and local government, reinforcing it as the benchmark the agency would apply to private-sector websites if a Title III rule ever follows.

The practical result: both regimes point to the same technical target. Build to WCAG 2.1 AA and you are working to the right specification for both markets.

---

Enforcement: the sharpest difference

This is where the two laws diverge most dramatically - and where the EAA represents a genuinely new kind of risk for companies accustomed to the US litigation model.

ADA: reactive and plaintiff-driven

Federal website accessibility lawsuits under ADA Title III bounced back in 2025, with 3,117 cases filed in federal court - a 27% increase from 2024 and the highest total since 2022. That figure covers only federal filings; state court actions and demand letters that resolve privately add substantially to the real volume. For every lawsuit that reaches federal court, defense attorneys report handling many more demand letters that resolve privately - meaning published filing numbers understate the true scope of litigation risk.

ADA enforcement is reactive: a plaintiff (or their attorney) identifies a barrier, sends a demand letter or files suit, and the business either settles or litigates. The DOJ can also investigate and take action, but the vast majority of cases are privately initiated. Settlements typically range from $5,000 to $75,000, plus attorney fees, redesign costs, and monitoring expenses.

EAA: proactive and regulatory

The EAA flips this model. EAA enforcement operates through national market-surveillance authorities in each EU Member State, which can monitor compliance on their own initiative, investigate complaints, order fixes, withdraw products from the market, and publicly name non-compliant organisations.

Through the second half of 2025, most national authorities were focused on building their enforcement capacity, but several had already started auditing organisations, handling complaints, and issuing formal notices. The enforcement timeline is accelerating:

• French disability organisations filed the first EAA-related lawsuits in French Commercial Court in November 2025, targeting major grocery retailers including Auchan, Carrefour, E.Leclerc, and Picard.
• In June 2026, a French court ordered Carrefour to make both its e-commerce site and mobile application fully accessible, with a daily fine for each day of delay.
• The Dutch ACM is actively enforcing EAA requirements for e-commerce and electronic communications.
• Sweden's PTS began inspecting laptops, smartphones, and tablets in October 2025 and opened its first e-commerce regulatory cases.

One further risk specific to the EAA: enforcement actions in one EU country can trigger investigations in others, because the EU's market surveillance framework includes information-sharing mechanisms between national authorities. A finding in France can prompt the Dutch ACM or German authorities to investigate the same company's services in their markets.

EAA penalties: a patchwork with real teeth

The EAA does not set a single EU-wide penalty scale. Each Member State sets its own fines, but the directive requires them to be "effective, proportionate, and dissuasive." The result is a wide range of national regimes - all of which are now live. For a detailed breakdown by country, see our EAA fines and penalties guide.

A snapshot of the key markets:

---

How to comply with both without doing the work twice

Here is the practical punchline. Because both regimes converge on WCAG 2.1 AA as their technical benchmark, a single, well-maintained accessibility programme largely satisfies both. You do not need a separate "ADA programme" and a separate "EAA programme."

Target WCAG 2.1 AA - and consider going to 2.2

WCAG 2.1 AA is the current legal minimum under both regimes. But WCAG 2.2, which became a W3C Recommendation on 5 October 2023, is fully backward-compatible with WCAG 2.1 - meaning content that conforms to WCAG 2.2 also conforms to WCAG 2.1. The W3C's Accessibility Guidelines Working Group explicitly recommends that sites adopt WCAG 2.2 as their conformance target, even where formal obligations still reference 2.1.

There is a practical reason to do this now: EN 301 549 v4.1.1, which is expected to incorporate WCAG 2.2, is anticipated to publish in 2026 - which would make WCAG 2.2 the mandatory EAA standard. Targeting 2.2 today means you will not need to revisit your programme when that update lands.

Publish an accessibility statement - it is mandatory under the EAA

An accessibility statement is a legal requirement under the EAA for covered services. It must describe your conformance status, identify known gaps, and provide a mechanism for users to report barriers. Under ADA Title III there is no equivalent formal requirement, but publishing one is strong evidence of good faith and is increasingly expected by courts and plaintiffs' counsel.

France imposes a separate penalty of up to €25,000 per year for a missing or inadequate accessibility statement - making this one of the cheapest compliance wins available. Our EAA in force guide covers what a compliant statement must contain.

Build ongoing testing into your release process

A one-time audit is not a compliance programme. Both regimes require that accessibility is maintained over time - the ADA because repeat lawsuits against companies that have already settled are common, and the EAA because market-surveillance authorities can investigate at any point.

A sustainable testing cadence combines:

• Automated scanning on every deployment (catches roughly 30-40% of issues)
• Manual keyboard and screen reader testing on critical user journeys (checkout, account creation, forms)
• Periodic third-party audits against EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1 AA, documented in a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) or equivalent

---

Prioritised action list for dual-market companies

---

The bottom line

The ADA and EAA are not the same law, and treating them as interchangeable will leave gaps. The ADA is reactive, litigation-driven, and applies broadly to any business serving US customers. The EAA is proactive, regulatory, and applies to a defined list of digital products and services offered to EU consumers - with fines, market bans, and in Ireland, criminal sanctions as potential consequences.

But the technical convergence is real and useful. Both regimes point to WCAG 2.1 AA. Build to that standard - and consider going to WCAG 2.2 now - and you are working to the right specification for both markets simultaneously. Add an accessibility statement, maintain ongoing testing, and document your programme. That is the architecture of a dual-market compliance programme that does not require doing the work twice.