How to write an accessibility statement

An accessibility statement is a short, public page that says what standard your site is assessed against, how well it meets that standard, and how people can report problems. It's one of the plainest, cheapest things you can do to show a good-faith compliance effort — and under the EAA, it's effectively expected of you. Here's how to write one.

Why the EAA effectively requires one

Directive (EU) 2019/882 has applied since 28 June 2025 (with only narrow transitional exceptions, not a blanket grace period until 2030), and an exemption for micro-enterprises (under 10 employees and under €2 million turnover). The EAA itself doesn't hand you a statement template. Instead, the accepted model comes from the Web Accessibility Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/2102), which already requires public sector bodies to publish accessibility statements in a standard format. Businesses in scope of the EAA have adopted the same model, because it's the recognised way to demonstrate — in writing, with a date on it — that you know your obligations and are acting on them. Regulators and claimants both look for it; not having one at all reads as not having looked at the problem.

The six standard sections

A statement built on the Directive 2016/2102 model, adapted for EAA context, covers six things. Each is worth getting right rather than generic.

1. Commitment and standards referenced.State plainly that you're committed to making your site accessible, and name the standard you're assessing against — typically EN 301 549 and WCAG 2.1 AA. Naming the standard matters more than it sounds: it's what turns a vague promise into a checkable claim.

2. Conformance status.Say whether the site is fully conformant, partially conformant, or not conformant with the standard you named. Most real sites, honestly assessed, land on partially conformant — that's normal, not a failure.

3. Non-accessible content.List the specific, known limitations — not a vague disclaimer. “Some PDF documents in the resources section are not tagged for screen readers” is useful; “some content may not be fully accessible” is not. Specificity here is what separates a statement that looks like it was copy-pasted from one that looks like someone actually ran a scan.

4. Preparation date and evaluation method.State when the statement was prepared and how you assessed conformance — self-assessment, automated scan, manual audit, or a combination. This is what makes the statement evidence rather than a promise: it ties your claim to a method and a date.

5. Feedback contact channel.Give a real way for someone to report an accessibility problem — an email address or a contact form that reaches a person, not a general inbox that goes unread. This is often the section regulators check first, because it's the easiest to verify.

6. Enforcement-procedure pointer.Point to the relevant national enforcement body or procedure, so a visitor who isn't satisfied with your response has somewhere else to go. Including this isn't an invitation to be sued — it's what a statement modelled on Directive 2016/2102 is supposed to contain, and its absence is conspicuous.

Be honest: partially conformant beats falsely fully conformant

The single most important piece of wording advice is this: don't claim full conformance you can't back up. A truthful statement that says “partially conformant, with the following known limitations” is stronger — legally and practically — than a statement that claims full conformance and is then contradicted by an automated scan or a user complaint. Courts and regulators assessing EAA compliance are looking for good-faith effort, not perfection. A dated, specific, partially-conformant statement backed by a real scan is good-faith effort. An unsupported claim of full conformance is the opposite: it turns your own statement into evidence against you.

Keep it updated after site changes

A statement is only as good as its preparation date. If you redesign a page, add a new checkout flow, or publish a batch of new PDFs, your non-accessible content section is probably out of date the moment those changes ship. Treat the statement as a living document tied to your scan history, not a one-time task to close out and forget.

Generate one in two minutes

Writing all six sections from a blank page is where most people stall, and it's exactly where a false, generic claim tends to creep in. AccessProof's statement generator at /statement builds a statement from a real scan of your site, so the conformance status and known limitations sections are based on what was actually found — not on guesswork. Run the free 5-page scan at accessproof first, then generate the statement from those results.

This article is general information about EU accessibility law, not legal advice.