In short and in plain language
This article explains the accessibility statement. In it, a provider says how well people can use its site. The law asks for some set details.
The statement says what the service is and how it meets the rules. It also names the market watchdog.
Often a site is only partly accessible. It is fine to say so. Do not claim to meet all rules without a check.
People can use a form to report barriers. For private firms the law does not ask for this, but it helps. The statement should be easy to find and show a date.
We are happy to write the statement based on a check of your site.
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: it is how the provider makes the information required by Annex 3 BFSG available. It is the publicly visible record of how accessible a digital service actually is. A feedback mechanism through which people with disabilities can report barriers is not required by the BFSG, but it is mandatory for public sector bodies under EU law and makes sense for private providers too. 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, what the EU model adds, how a feedback mechanism can be structured and which wordings hold up factually.
Key takeaways
- Annex 3 of the BFSG requires, where applicable, four elements: a general description of the service in an accessible format, explanations of how it is carried out, a description of how it meets the accessibility requirements, and the name of the competent market surveillance authority. Conformance status, a list of non-accessible content and the enforcement procedure come from the EU model for public sector bodies.
- Partial conformance is the realistic case: 95.9 percent (WebAIM Million, 2024) of home pages carried at least one measurable WCAG violation, and a defensible status requires manual keyboard and screen reader testing.
- The feedback mechanism is mandatory for public sector bodies (Directive 2016/2102): it receives reports of barriers and requests for excluded content, with an adequate response within a reasonable period. Under the BFSG it is voluntary; an operable online form plus a second route such as telephone is recommended.
- As the escalation point the statement names the market surveillance authority of the federal states for products and services (MLBF) in Magdeburg, for cases where a reply is missing or inadequate.
- The statement belongs in its own permanently linked menu entry next to imprint and privacy policy, carries a review date and is rechecked at least yearly and after every relaunch, with fixed barriers removed from the list.
- Mistakes to avoid are blanket claims of full conformance without an audit finding, an email address supplied only as an image, an outdated date and a statement page that is itself not operable.
Why the Accessibility Statement Is Mandatory
The BFSG transposes the European Accessibility Act (EAA, Directive 2019/882) into German law and obliges service providers to make information available on how their service meets the accessibility requirements. 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 how the service meets the requirements and which market surveillance authority is responsible.
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
Mandatory Items Under BFSG Annex 3 and the EU Model
BFSG Annex 3 requires, where applicable, a general description of the service in an accessible format, descriptions and explanations needed to understand how it is carried out, a description of how it meets the accessibility requirements, and the name of the competent market surveillance authority. The EU model statement for public sector bodies (Implementing Decision 2018/1523) goes further: it provides for the conformance status, a list of non-accessible content with reasons, a feedback mechanism with contact details and a reference to the enforcement procedure. For private providers the model is not mandatory, but it works as a structure because it makes the Annex 3 information verifiable.
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 a typical entry in such lists - how to avoid this is shown in our article on accessible images and alt text. Embedded media can be affected as well: 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 are met; for the web, version V3.2.1 references WCAG 2.1 AA and version V4.1.1 from 2026 references WCAG 2.2 AA. 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 many cases, partially conformant is 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. It is useful to link the status with the test date and the underlying standard version, so that readers know the reference point; how an audit report records the benchmark and findings is shown by the sample report under references. 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 can be checked later.
| 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
For public sector bodies, the feedback mechanism is a mandatory part of the statement: a channel through which any person can report a lack of accessibility and request exempted content as an accessible alternative (Directive 2016/2102, EU 2018/1523). The BFSG does not require it; for private providers it is a voluntary addition that routes feedback directly to the provider. 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: for public sector bodies, Directive 2016/2102 requires an adequate response within a reasonable period. The directive does not prescribe a fixed number of working days; for German federal public bodies, Section 12b(4) BGG sets a reply within one month at the latest. Private providers can use this as a guide. 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
Under Annex 3 BFSG, naming the competent market surveillance authority is one of the mandatory items; that way affected people know where to turn if the provider's response 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). Under Section 32 BFSG, consumers can apply to it to initiate proceedings. 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. Naming the market surveillance authority is not an admission of defects but a component provided for by law that protects users' rights. A short, clearly worded passage is sufficient, as long as it explains the route to market surveillance and the option of a complaint in an understandable way.
- 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.
The language of the statement deserves attention too. A statement written in simple, clear language reaches more people than a text full of legal nesting - that applies in particular to people with cognitive impairments, but to every other reader as well. Where a second language version is offered, it should be on the same content level. Finally, the statement page itself belongs on the test bench: it should be operable with screen reader and keyboard, have a sensible heading structure and provide sufficient contrast. A statement about accessibility that contains barriers itself is not credible.
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 usually exposed by an audit.
Avoiding Common Mistakes in Statements
Several weaknesses are easy to avoid: the blanket claim of full conformance without an audit basis and a feedback mechanism that consists only of an image-graphic address. The same goes for a missing or outdated date, a missing reference to the competent market surveillance authority and a statement that is not itself accessible.
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
Related Articles
Accessible CMS Backends: ATAG for Authoring Tools
ATAG 2.0 audits the tool, not just the website: Part A covers the editing interface, Part B the guardrails that make accessible content the likely outcome.
Accessible E-Learning: Platforms, Courses and Quizzes
Paid online courses fall under the BFSG, universities under BITV 2.0. How to make the learning journey from booking to certificate genuinely accessible.
Accessible Online Banking: the BFSG Duty for Banks
Account opening, online banking and TAN approval must be accessible since 2025. What the BFSG requires of banks, savings banks and fintechs in practice.