Few sentences about the German Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) are repeated as confidently and as wrongly as this one: "As a micro-enterprise we are exempt anyway." The claim sounds reassuring and is, in many cases, simply untrue. The micro-enterprise exemption is tied to a hard double threshold, it applies explicitly to services only and not to products, and for many online shops it comes to nothing at all. Anyone relying on a presumed exemption without checking the conditions carries the full risk of market surveillance. This article explains the exact threshold, the limits of the exemption, the alternative relief under Section 17 BFSG including its documentation and reassessment duties, and provides a scoping checklist so you can judge your situation on facts rather than gut feeling.
Key takeaways
- Micro-enterprise status requires both limits at once: fewer than 10 employees and no more than 2 million euros in annual turnover or balance sheet total (BFSG Section 3). Eight employees with three million in turnover is not enough.
- The exemption covers services only. Anyone placing products within the meaning of the act on the market must make them accessible regardless of company size (BFSG Section 1).
- For online shops the exemption often comes to nothing: selling covered products such as smartphones, e-book readers, routers or payment terminals voids it for that part of the business (Händlerbund); website, app and terminal are judged per channel.
- About 81 percent of all German enterprises counted as micro-enterprises in 2023 (Federal Statistical Office, 2024). Size status alone says nothing about whether the exemption fits your own business model.
- If the exemption does not apply, the disproportionate burden route under Section 17 BFSG remains: the assessment must be documented, kept for five years, produced on request by market surveillance and renewed at least every five years.
- That assessment weighs the net cost of accessibility against total costs and net turnover plus the benefit for people with disabilities (BFSG Annex 4). Effort alone does not make a burden disproportionate.
The Costly Mistake: Micro-Enterprise Does Not Mean Exempt
In many businesses a convenient shorthand has taken hold: if you are small, you do not have to do anything. This simplification is dangerous because it merges two separate questions. The first question is whether a company reaches the thresholds of a micro-enterprise at all. The second is whether the exemption actually applies in the specific case, that is, whether only services and no products are involved. In everyday practice both questions are collapsed into one and answered with a quick "does not concern us." That is exactly where the risk begins.
The background makes clear why lawmakers drew the exemption narrowly. At the end of 2023, around 7.9 million severely disabled people lived in Germany, equal to 9.3 percent of the population (Federal Statistical Office, 2024). Adding older people with age-related and situational limitations, the group that depends on accessible digital offerings grows considerably. A blanket exemption for all small providers would shut this group out of a significant part of the market. The exemption is therefore not a free pass but a narrowly defined special case.
A Presumption Is Not Proof
The Threshold: When Does a Company Count as a Micro-Enterprise?
The BFSG defines a micro-enterprise by two limits. Only a company with fewer than 10 employees that at the same time reaches at most 2 million euros in annual turnover or an annual balance sheet total of at most 2 million euros is exempt from the requirements for services (BFSG Section 3). The word crucial here is "at the same time": both conditions must be met cumulatively (Federal Office for Accessibility). A company with eight employees but three million euros in turnover is not a micro-enterprise for the purpose of the exemption. Nor is a company with one million euros in turnover that employs twelve people.
There is a statistical reason so many businesses wrongly feel safe. In 2023, out of 3.2 million small and medium-sized enterprises, around 2.6 million counted as micro-enterprises, roughly 81 percent of all enterprises in Germany (Federal Statistical Office, 2024). In total, 99.3 percent of all enterprises belonged to the small and medium-sized category (Federal Statistical Office, 2024), and 53 percent of all employees worked in this group (Federal Statistical Office, 2024). The sheer volume leads many decision-makers to assume the exemption is the norm. Yet size status alone says nothing about whether the exemption applies to their own business model.
How the Values Are Counted
| Criterion | Limit for the exemption | Check note |
|---|---|---|
| Employees | fewer than 10 people | full and part time, prior year |
| Annual turnover | at most EUR 2 million | alternative to the balance sheet |
| Annual balance sheet total | at most EUR 2 million | alternative to turnover |
| Linking of criteria | both conditions at once | cumulative, otherwise no exemption |
The Decisive Catch: The Exemption Covers Services Only
Even a company that clearly stays below both thresholds is not automatically off the hook. The micro-enterprise exemption relates exclusively to services (Federal Office for Accessibility). It does not apply to products. A micro-enterprise that places products within the meaning of the law on the market falls under the BFSG and must make those products accessible (BFSG Section 1). This distinction is the most frequently overlooked point of the entire debate, because in digital everyday life a service and a product often coincide in the same offering.
| Constellation | Does the exemption apply? | What follows |
|---|---|---|
| Pure service, below the threshold | included | No BFSG duty for the service |
| Service, above the threshold | not included | Full duty under EN 301 549 |
| Product within the meaning of the BFSG | not included | Duty regardless of size |
| Online shop with BFSG products | not included | Accessibility despite micro status |
The table shows that the exemption is only one of several forks. It protects a small provider that delivers services exclusively and stays safely below the size threshold. As soon as a product is added or the threshold is exceeded, the exemption lapses. For your own assessment it is worth looking at our overview of the specific BFSG requirements, which describes which obligations actually have to be met if the exemption does not apply.
One Product Voids the Exemption
Online Shop with Products: Why the Exemption Often Comes to Nothing
In e-commerce in particular, the presumed safety falls apart quickly. An online shop does provide a service, but it often sells exactly those products that the BFSG explicitly covers. If a small shop sells, for example, smartphones, e-book readers, computers or routers, the micro-enterprise exemption does not apply to those products (Händlerbund). The business remains obligated even though it stays below the employee and turnover threshold. The overview below shows products and constellations that regularly void the exemption.
Smartphones and Tablets
Consumer devices with interactive functions are among the products covered by the BFSG. Anyone selling them cannot rely on the exemption for these goods.
E-Book Readers and E-Books
Reading devices and the associated digital publications are explicitly part of the scope and must be accessibly available.
Computers and Notebooks
Consumer hardware including operating systems falls under the product duties of the law, regardless of company size.
Payment and Self-Service Terminals
Self-service and payment terminals are covered products. The requirement applies to them even for very small providers.
Telecommunications Devices
Routers, modems and similar network termination devices for end customers are among the products that must be usable in an accessible way.
Shop with Such Goods
As soon as a micro-enterprise offers covered products, the service exemption no longer applies to that part of the business.
On top of the product question comes the channel question. Many small providers run a mobile app alongside the website through which the same services operate. Here, too, the scope has to be assessed anew, because apps can be judged both as part of a service and as product-related. How the requirements translate concretely to iOS and Android is described in the article on accessible apps under the BFSG. For the accessible shop and accessible e-commerce, the sum is this: size provides relief less often than many hope.
- Check the pure service offering: Is only a service provided, or is a covered product also sold?
- Go through the range: If devices such as smartphones, e-book readers or routers are on offer, the exemption lapses for those products.
- Include the channels: Consider website, app and terminal separately, because the scope can differ per channel.
- Watch the thresholds continuously: Growth in staff or turnover can end the micro status at any time.
When the Exemption Does Not Apply: Disproportionate Burden Under Section 17
If a company falls outside the micro-enterprise exemption, a second, entirely different relief remains: the disproportionate burden under Section 17 BFSG. It is not a blanket size exemption but a case-by-case assessment. The accessibility requirements then apply only insofar as they do not lead to a fundamental alteration of the essential nature of a service or to a disproportionate burden (BFSG Section 17). Anyone invoking it must not simply claim it but prove it and maintain it over time.
This is precisely where Section 17 differs from convenient self-exemption. Anyone claiming disproportionate burden must document the assessment and keep that documentation for five years, counted from the last placing of a product on the market or the last provision of a service (BFSG Section 17). On request from the market surveillance authority, a copy of the assessment must be provided (BFSG Section 17). Service providers must also carry out their assessment for each service category again at least every five years (BFSG Section 17). Invoking Section 17 is therefore not a one-off act but a continuing burden of proof.
- Document: Record the assessment of the disproportionate burden in writing.
- Retain: Keep the records for five years from the last placing on the market or provision.
- Present: Provide a copy on request from the market surveillance authority.
- Reassess: As a service provider, repeat the assessment at least every five years.
For the assessment itself, the law sets criteria. Decisive is the ratio of the net cost of accessibility to total costs and net turnover, together with the expected benefit for people with disabilities (BFSG Annex 4). A disproportionate burden therefore does not exist merely because accessibility causes effort, but only when that effort is genuinely out of proportion to turnover and benefit. How narrowly authorities draw this line in case of doubt and how enforcement works is set out in the article on BFSG enforcement and legal risks.
Section 17 Is Not a Permanent Excuse
Neither micro status nor Section 17 is a door that, once opened, stays open forever. Both routes require a provable assessment that you can present when it matters.
The Scoping Checklist: Five Steps to Clarity
The following checklist leads from a rough self-assessment to a sound conclusion. It does not replace individual legal advice but sorts the situation cleanly before budget or effort is fixed. Anyone who honestly works through these five steps will know at the end whether they can invoke an exemption or whether structured implementation is due.
- Check the threshold: Is the employee count below 10 and turnover or balance sheet total at most 2 million euros? Only if both apply is micro status reached at all (BFSG Section 3).
- Determine service or product: Is it a pure service, or are covered products placed on the market? For products the exemption lapses (BFSG Section 1).
- Separate the channels: Assess website, app, terminal and online shop individually, because the scope can differ per channel.
- Check the Section 17 alternative: If the exemption does not apply, clarify whether a disproportionate burden exists and can be documented (BFSG Section 17).
- Record the result: Secure the assessment in writing so it can be presented in the event of an official inquiry.
The last step is often underestimated. Whether a company is exempt or not is, in a dispute, a question of provability. A traceably documented assessment is at the same time the basis for the accessibility statement and for continuous accessibility monitoring that makes status changes visible early.
From Presumption to a Robust Assessment
The real message of this article is not a paragraph but a stance: scope is not a matter of feeling but of proof. A quick glance at the headcount is not enough to feel safe. Only the combination of threshold check, product and channel analysis and, where necessary, the assessment under Section 17 yields a sound picture. This assessment can be carried out in a structured way and forms the basis for everything that follows. Which obligations arise from an existing scope is summarized on our page on the BFSG requirements.
What Counts in the End
Once the scope is clarified, implementation usually follows through a structured WCAG 2.2 audit and a prioritized action plan. Whether the effort pays off and what order of magnitude is realistic is set out in the article on the cost and ROI of an accessibility audit. Where your company actually stands, we are happy to clarify without obligation through our services or directly via the contact page.
Sources and Studies