Accessible Websites Under the BFSG: What Companies Will Really Need to Implement by 2026

Accessible Websites According to the BFSG: What Has Been in Effect Since June 2025 and What Will Be Added in 2026

“Does this Accessibility Act even apply to us? We’re a small business with twelve employees—not a bank.” We’ve been hearing this question for over a year now in almost every initial consultation, usually with a tone that falls somewhere between concern and annoyance. The Accessibility Enhancement Act (BFSG) has been in effect since June 28, 2025. Since then, warning letters, agency newsletters with threatening language, and a great many half-truths have been circulating.

This article breaks down what the law actually says, who is affected and who is not, what the new regulatory authority has actually done so far, and which technical requirements are most commonly lacking in practice. In addition, there is a new provision taking effect in September 2026 that raises the technical bar.

A quick note before we begin: This post is not a substitute for legal advice. We are web designers, not lawyers. For a definitive assessment of your specific case, we recommend consulting a lawyer who specializes in IT law.

Where the law comes from and what it governs

The BFSG implements European Directive 2019/882, known as the European Accessibility Act. It was adopted back in 2021, with a transition period of just under four years. It does not regulate the accessibility of “the Internet,” but rather a manageable list of products and services for consumers: telecommunications, e-books, banking services, apps for passenger transportation, self-service terminals, and—this is the key point for most companies—“e-commerce services.”

According to Section 2 of the law, this broad term refers to any digital service provided via a website or app “in response to an individual request from a consumer with a view to concluding a consumer contract.” In other words, the law applies wherever a private individual can buy, book, or place a binding order on your website.

Am I affected? Three real-life cases

Almost every website we come across falls into one of three categories. The Federal Agency for Accessibility, which provides advice on behalf of the federal government, has made clear statements on this matter in its FAQs regarding the BFSG.

Case 1: The digital business card. Your website introduces the company, lists services, references, business hours, and a phone number. Contracts are concluded over the phone or in person. According to the Federal Office for Professional Affairs, such a “purely promotional website” does not fall under the BFSG because there is no individual request to conclude a contract. This also applies if you advertise your products on the site.

Case 2: Online store, appointment scheduling, ordering process. As soon as consumers can shop, book, or make reservations online, you’re covered. The Federal Agency specifically cites online appointment booking as an example. This therefore applies not only to online retailers, but also to the physical therapy practice with a booking tool, the hair salon with an appointment calendar, and the tradesperson who makes paid maintenance packages available for order via their website.

Case 3: The Gray Area Contact Form. According to the standard interpretation of the BMAS guidelines, a form that someone uses simply to ask a question is considered a general inquiry and is not problematic. A form specifically designed to schedule an appointment or initiate a contract (“Request an Appointment Now,” “Place a Binding Order”) falls closer to Case 2. To be honest: This distinction is a matter of interpretation, not statutory text, and no court has ruled on it yet. If you want to play it safe, design the form to be accessible from the start. It hardly requires any extra effort anyway.

One more point that is often overlooked: The BFSG protects consumers. According to the Federal Agency, businesses that sell exclusively to other businesses—that is, those engaged in purely B2B business—are not affected. However, as soon as private customers are also able to place orders, that changes the situation.

The Exception for Micro-Enterprises, and When It Does Not Apply

This is where the most significant relief for small businesses lies. The law excludes microenterprises that provide services. A microenterprise is defined as having fewer than ten employees and either an annual revenue of no more than 2 million euros or a balance sheet total of no more than 2 million euros. Both conditions must be met simultaneously.

Because selling through an online store is legally considered a “service in electronic commerce,” the exception also applies to small online stores. The example provided by the Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK) sums it up: A beauty salon with eight employees that offers online appointment booking and sells creams through its website is not affected. A hair salon with twelve employees that offers appointment booking is affected.

The exception has two limitations. First, it applies only to service providers, not to manufacturers, importers, or retailers who themselves place BFSG-regulated products—such as e-readers or terminals—on the market. Second, it is an exception to the legal obligation, not to the practical wisdom of compliance. More on that in a moment. Incidentally, the Federal Agency does not explain how part-time employees or trainees are counted in the “fewer than ten people” requirement. For businesses operating close to the threshold, it’s worth consulting a lawyer.

Deadlines: What Takes Effect on June 28, 2025, and What Has Until 2030

The often-cited transition period through June 27, 2030, is frequently misunderstood. According to Section 38 of the Act, it applies to service contracts entered into before June 28, 2025. These contracts may continue unchanged. However, a website or booking tool is not considered an existing contract. Anyone who currently operates an online store that falls under the Act must make it accessible today—not just by 2030.

Who Conducts Inspections and What Penalties Apply for Violations

Responsibility lies with a new agency that did not previously exist under the law: the State Market Surveillance Agency for the Accessibility of Products and Services (MLBF), a joint agency of all 16 federal states based in Magdeburg. It has been operational since September 26, 2025, and adopted its testing strategies in January 2026.

The maximum fine for service providers who do not offer their services in an accessible manner is up to 100,000 euros. Violations of the obligations to cooperate and make corrections are punishable by fines of up to 10,000 euros. Section 32 is also important: Any consumer may file a request with the authority to initiate proceedings against a company. In addition, there is a right to bring a class-action lawsuit.

What has been the reality one year later? According to an MLBF press release dated June 1, 2026, nearly 700 reports, complaints, and requests have been received since September 2025. The agency is primarily reviewing online stores, banking services, ticketing systems, apps, and vending machines. We have not found any reports of an actual fine being imposed in any reputable source. That does not mean none will be imposed. It means that, in its first year, the agency has been investigating, providing guidance, and setting deadlines rather than imposing sanctions immediately.

Warning Letters: The Actual Risk Turned Out to Be Different Than Feared

The first wave did not come from the authorities, but from a law firm. As early as August 2025—two months after the law took effect—a law firm, acting on behalf of a web service provider, sent letters to companies with non-accessible websites, citing competition law, demanding approximately 1,000 euros and offering a “settlement” of 595 euros. Following public criticism, the law firm stated that these were merely notices, not formal warnings.

Competition law experts consider many of these letters to be open to challenge: There is often no competitive relationship, the violations are not specifically identified, and no court has yet ruled on whether a violation of the BFSG is even subject to a warning letter. Anyone who receives such a letter should not pay but should have it reviewed. We were unable to confirm the agency’s claims of a “2026 wave of cease-and-desist letters” involving thousands of letters in any reliable source.

A side note with significant implications: In March 2026, the European Commission issued a supplementary opinion to Germany, stating that, in its view, the directive has not been fully implemented. Further tightening of the law cannot therefore be ruled out. It remains to be seen in what direction this might go.

The technical standard: WCAG 2.1 AA today, WCAG 2.2 makes sense starting now

The law itself does not specify any pixel values. It refers to the European standard EN 301 549, which, in turn, refers to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Levels A and AA for websites. The version of the standard currently harmonized at the legal level—and thus serving as the basis for the presumption of conformity—is version 3.2.1 from 2021, which corresponds to WCAG 2.1.

New as of September 2, 2026: The European standards organization ETSI has published version 4.1.1 of EN 301 549. It incorporates WCAG 2.2 and introduces six additional criteria for websites, including minimum sizes for click targets, visible focus that is not obscured by sticky headers, no duplicate data entry in forms, and logins that do not rely solely on puzzle-style CAPTCHAs. Publication in the Official Journal of the EU, which will make the new version legally binding, is still pending and is expected in the fall of 2026. Our recommendation is clear: Anyone building or redesigning a website now should do so in accordance with WCAG 2.2 AA. The six new points are a given anyway with clean design.

Why It's Worth It Even Without a Law

Two figures put the debate over mandatory requirements and exceptions into perspective. According to a July 2026 press release from the Federal Statistical Office, 7.8 million people with a recognized severe disability were living in Germany at the end of 2025—that is, 9.4 percent of the population. More than three-quarters of them are over 55. Added to this are millions who, without a disability certificate, have poor vision, shaky hands, or simply stand in the sun while using their cell phones. Accessibility is therefore less of a niche topic and more a question of whether your website works for a customer group that accounts for a large portion of business in the skilled trades and healthcare sectors.

The second figure shows just how big the gap is. The annual WebAIM Million Study, released in February 2026, automatically tested the homepages of the one million most-visited websites: 95.9 percent had detectable WCAG errors, averaging 56 per page. The three most common errors have remained the same for years: insufficient contrast on 83.9 percent of pages, missing alternative text on 53.1 percent, and missing form labels on 51 percent. In Germany, in June 2025, Aktion Mensch, in collaboration with Google, had 65 of the most-visited online stores tested by people with disabilities. Two out of three were not accessible, and only 20 of the 65 stores could be operated using a keyboard.

The reverse is actually the interesting part: Anyone who avoids these three to five common mistakes is better positioned than the majority of the market. And almost all of these factors simultaneously improve page load times, search engine rankings, and conversion rates. Alternative text helps Google; high contrast helps every mobile user outdoors; and clear error messages in forms reduce abandonment rates.

The Ten Points That Are Most Often Overlooked in Practice

Based on our projects and the studies mentioned, we have compiled a short list that covers most of the issues. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the criteria from WCAG 2.2.

1. Contrast. Body text requires a contrast ratio of at least 4.5 to 1 against the background; large headings require a ratio of 3 to 1 (1.4.3). Light gray on white—a favorite in many designs—almost always fails to meet the requirement.

2. Keyboard navigation. Every function must be accessible without a mouse, using the Tab, Enter, and arrow keys (2.1.1). Menus that respond only to hovering and sliders without keyboard control are classic examples.

3. Visible focus. Users must be able to see where the cursor is on the keyboard (2.4.7). Many themes remove the focus border for aesthetic reasons. New in 2.2: The focus must not disappear behind a fixed header or cookie banner (2.4.11).

4. Alternative text. Every image that conveys content needs a description; every purely decorative image needs an empty alt text so that screen readers will skip it (1.1.1).

5. Form labels. Each field must have a real label, not just placeholder text that disappears when you start typing. Errors must be described in text form, not just indicated by a red border (3.3.1).

6. Clickable elements. Buttons and links must be at least 24 by 24 pixels in size or have the appropriate spacing (2.5.8). This applies to the tiny social media icons in the footer and the arrows in the slider.

7. Text enlargement and reflow. At 200 percent zoom, nothing should be cut off (1.4.4), and at a width of 320 pixels, horizontal scrolling should not be necessary (1.4.10). If you’ve built the website properly for mobile devices, you’ve usually already taken care of this.

8. Subtitles. Recorded videos with audio require subtitles (1.2.2). The background video in the header that has no audio is not affected by this.

9. Language and Structure. The page’s text must be included in the code, and headings must be actual headings, not paragraphs formatted in bold. This may sound trivial, but it is missing from more than one in eight homepages in the study.

10. Overlays. Cookie banners, chat widgets, and pop-ups must be closable using the keyboard and must not block the rest of the page. They were one of the most common barriers identified in the Aktion Mensch test.

What’s not on the list: so-called accessibility overlays—plugins that promise “accessibility” at the click of a button. They do not fix structural errors and are described by many affected individuals as an additional hurdle. Using them offers no legal advantage.

The Duty to Disclose Information: What Belongs in the Terms and Conditions or on a Separate Page

Less well known than the technical requirements is the disclosure obligation set forth in Section 14 and Annex 3 of the Act. Anyone subject to the BFSG must publish three items in their terms and conditions or “in another clearly visible manner”: a general description of the service in an accessible format, an explanation of how the accessibility requirements are met, and the name of the competent market surveillance authority.

In practice, it has become standard to have a separate “Accessibility” page, linked in the footer next to the Legal Notice and Privacy Policy. The term “accessibility statement” actually originates from the public sector, but is now also used by companies. It’s important that the page is honest: Those who identify known gaps and provide a way to submit feedback come across better than those who make blanket claims of compliance.

How to Do an Initial Check Yourself in an Hour

You don't need any software for this. Put your mouse aside and try using the Tab key to navigate through the homepage to the contact form or the shopping cart. Can you see where you are at all times? Can you enter and exit the menu? Can you close the cookie banner? Then zoom your browser to 200 percent and check whether any text is cut off or elements are overlapping.

For contrast and alt text, the Accessibility Report in Chrome’s Developer Tools is helpful; it runs under “Lighthouse” with just two clicks and lists the most common automatically detectable errors. It finds only some of the problems, but precisely those that top the statistics above. What it doesn’t detect are logical errors: incomprehensible link text, incorrect heading order, and forms that don’t provide any feedback after submission. That requires a human—ideally someone who uses a screen reader themselves.

Conclusion: Less of a burden than feared, more benefits than expected

Under the current interpretation, there is no obligation for a basic company website without booking or an online store, nor is there one for micro-enterprises offering services. Anyone who sells appointments or products online and employs more than nine people has been required since June 2025 to register with a government agency that, following nearly 700 reports in its first year, is now actively conducting inspections. Regardless, the ten points above help avoid the mistakes that account for 96 percent of all problems, and they make the website usable for millions of customers who often abandon it today. That’s why, starting this year, WCAG 2.2 AA has been the standard—not an optional extra—in our web design projects.

Related: Storytelling in Web Design Isn't a Gimmick, but a Structure, and Web Design Trends for 2026: What Will Stay and What Will Disappear Again

Not sure if your website falls under the BFSG or where it stands?

We’ll give your website an honest assessment based on these ten points, let you know whether we think you’re affected, and point out which issues can be fixed with minimal effort. Just send us a quick message using the contact form. We’ll respond within 24 hours—personally and without any sales pitch.