Since 28 June 2025, the German Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) has required many private providers to make their websites, apps and online shops accessible. An often overlooked but mandatory building block is the accessibility statement with a working feedback mechanism. It is the publicly visible record of how accessible a digital service actually is - and the channel through which people with disabilities can report barriers. With 7.9M (Federal Statistical Office, 2024) people with severe disabilities in Germany alone and 16% (WHO, 2023) of the world population living with a disability, this concerns a large audience. This guide shows which mandatory items the BFSG requirements prescribe through Annex 3, how a feedback mechanism under EN 301 549 should be structured and which wordings are legally sound.
Why the Accessibility Statement Is Mandatory
The BFSG transposes the European Accessibility Act (EAA, Directive 2019/882) into German law and requires an accessibility statement for affected products and services. The minimum content requirements stem from Annex 3 to sections 14 and 28 BFSG and from the associated ordinance (BFSGV). Unlike the purely technical requirements of WCAG, the statement is a documentary obligation: it makes publicly traceable which standards apply, which content is not yet accessible and whom affected people can contact.
The urgency is measurable. The WebAIM Million Report (2024) found at least one automatically detectable WCAG violation on 95.9% (WebAIM Million, 2024) of the one million home pages analyzed, on average 56.8 (WebAIM Million, 2024) errors per page. A statement claiming everything is fully accessible is rarely credible against this backdrop - and legally risky. More realistic and admissible is the honest indication of a partial conformance status with a list of the known gaps. Which BFSG requirements specifically apply to your service depends on company size, sector and the type of service.
A statement is not the same as conformance
The Mandatory Items Under BFSG Annex 3 in Detail
The EU model statement (Implementing Decision 2018/1523) and BFSG Annex 3 name a fixed core of items. These include a general description of the service provided in an accessible format, the underlying conformance status, a list of non-accessible content with justification for any exemptions, a feedback mechanism with contact details, and a reference to the enforcement procedure. If one of these points is missing, the statement is incomplete.
Conformance status
State whether the service is fully, partially or not conformant with WCAG 2.2 AA and EN 301 549. Name partial conformance honestly.
Non-accessible content
A concrete list of known barriers, such as untagged old PDFs or third-party content, with justification and a planned fix.
Justification of exemptions
Where a disproportionate burden or an exemption is claimed, this must be justified in a comprehensible way.
Feedback mechanism
Description of and link to a channel through which users can report barriers and request accessible alternatives.
Responsible unit
Contact details of the unit or person responsible for accessibility and for processing feedback received.
Date and procedure
Date of creation or last review and a reference to the enforcement procedure of the market surveillance authority.
Images without a meaningful alternative text are among the most frequently named gaps in such lists - how to avoid this is shown in our article on accessible images and alt text. Embedded media is another frequent point: how to make videos accessible is described in our article on accessible media with captions and transcripts. For untagged PDF documents listed as non-conformant in the statement, our article on accessible PDFs and documents is also worth a look.
State the Conformance Status Realistically
The conformance status is the heart of the statement. Three levels are common: fully conformant, partially conformant and not conformant. Full conformance means that all requirements of EN 301 549 - which for the web essentially references WCAG 2.1 AA, and increasingly WCAG 2.2 AA in practice - are met. Since automated testing tools only reliably cover a portion of the criteria (W3C/WAI), a solid status statement requires manual tests with keyboard and screen reader.
In practice, partially conformant is the most common and usually the most honest indication. It is important that the status line matches the known barriers listed further below. A statement that claims full conformance while also listing exemptions is contradictory. From our reference projects, it has proven useful to link the status with the test date and the underlying standard version, so that readers know the reference point. A brief note on how the assessment was reached - for example through a combination of automated checks and manual tests - is also helpful. This turns the status from a mere claim into a traceable statement that holds up under later review.
| Status | Meaning | When it applies |
|---|---|---|
| Fully conformant | All applicable requirements of EN 301 549 met | After a complete audit with no open findings - rare in practice |
| Partially conformant | Mostly conformant, individual named content not yet | Realistic default case with documented, scheduled gaps |
| Not conformant | Essential requirements not met | Transition phase with an action plan and time horizon |
The Feedback Mechanism: More Than an Email Address
The feedback mechanism is a mandatory part of the statement and, under the EU rules, a channel through which any person can report a lack of accessibility and request exempted content as an accessible alternative (EU 2018/1523). In practice, a plain email address is often not enough, because it can itself be a barrier - for example if it only exists as an image. A combination of an accessible online form and at least one alternative contact route such as phone or post is recommended.
The response matters: the EU rules require an adequate response within a reasonable period (Directive 2016/2102). The directive does not prescribe a fixed number of working days; individual public bodies voluntarily state periods of around two weeks. Anyone operating the mechanism should define an internal process for intake, handling and reply. The form itself must meet the same requirements as any other - our article on accessible forms and validation helps here.
In practice, it has proven useful to log incoming reports and feed them back into the maintenance of the statement: a reported barrier that gets fixed should then be removed from the list of known problems. This creates a closed loop of feedback, correction and updated documentation. It is also important that the reply to the reporting person is worded clearly and names a concrete next step - for example a date for the fix or a pointer to an already available accessible alternative. A mere acknowledgement form without a substantive response only inadequately fulfills the purpose of the mechanism.
<form action="/accessibility-feedback" method="post">
<label for="a11y-mail">Your email address</label>
<input id="a11y-mail" type="email" name="mail"
autocomplete="email" aria-required="true" />
<label for="a11y-text">Which barrier did you encounter?</label>
<textarea id="a11y-text" name="text"
aria-required="true"></textarea>
<button type="submit">Report barrier</button>
</form>
<p>Alternatively, you can reach us by phone using
the number stated in the imprint.</p>Keep the feedback channel accessible
Name the Enforcement Procedure and Market Surveillance
The statement must reference the enforcement procedure so that affected people know where to turn if the response via the feedback mechanism is absent or inadequate. For products and services under the BFSG, the federal states' market surveillance authority for the accessibility of products and services (MLBF), based in Magdeburg, is the central point of contact (Federal Accessibility Agency). The reference should be worded as a usable escalation path, not just as a formality.
How enforcement can work in practice and what consequences may follow is described in detail in our article on BFSG enforcement and legal risks. It is important that the details on the responsible unit and the procedure stay current: if authority contacts change, the statement should be adjusted. For ongoing maintenance, a fixed review rhythm is advisable.
- Include a reference to market surveillance (MLBF Magdeburg) as the escalation body
- Describe that a complaint is possible if the response is absent or inadequate
- Clearly name the contact of the internally responsible accessibility unit
- Update details on the authority and procedure promptly when they change
- Place the statement so it is permanently easy to find, like imprint and privacy policy
Placement, Format and Currency of the Statement
The statement must be provided in an accessible format and be easy to find. The BFSG names inclusion in the general terms and conditions or another clearly perceptible manner. In practice, a dedicated, permanently linked menu item has proven effective - comparable to imprint and privacy policy - because otherwise the accessibility details would have to be maintained with every change to the terms. The page itself should be built with a correct heading hierarchy, sufficient contrast and keyboard operability.
Currency is not a minor aspect: a date that is years old signals an unmaintained statement. A review at least annually and after every major relaunch is advisable. Anyone who treats the statement as a living document and consistently removes fixed barriers from the list builds trust. This ongoing maintenance is part of our services and combines well with a regular re-audit.
An accessibility statement only becomes valuable once its conformance status, the named gaps and the real state of the website match - any glossing over is exposed in the first test.
Avoiding Common Mistakes in Statements
From assessing 50+ (project experience) services, we know recurring weaknesses. The most common is the blanket claim of full conformance without an audit basis, followed by a feedback mechanism that consists only of an image-graphic address. A missing or outdated date, a non-existent reference to the enforcement procedure and a statement that is not itself accessible also occur regularly.
Legal absolute claims are equally critical. Promotional promises of permanently unlimited accessibility without any caveat are not only hard to sustain technically but can also be challenged under competition law. A more defensible approach is a factual description of the achieved status, the known gaps and the planned steps with a realistic time horizon. Our accessible web development combines the technical implementation with a matching, solid statement, so that claim and reality align. The wording stays anchored in verifiable facts rather than marketing phrases.
Statement and implementation belong together