The EAA accessibility statement you are copying is the wrong one, and it has to be available orally

Search for an accessibility statement generator and you will find plenty. Most of them produce a document modelled on Directive (EU) 2016/2102, the Web Accessibility Directive, which binds public sector bodies. If you are a private service provider under the European Accessibility Act, that is the wrong instrument.

The EAA does not ask for an accessibility statement with a feedback mechanism and a link to an enforcement procedure. It asks for the Annex V information, in a specific place, with specific content, in written and oral format, kept for as long as the service operates.

Most teams get this wrong in three predictable ways:

• they publish a public-sector-style statement on a standalone page, when Annex V puts the information in the terms and conditions,
• they describe which standard they tested against, when Annex V asks how the Annex I requirements are met,
• they never produce the oral format, which is not optional and not a footnote.

This guide is written for whoever owns the document: the compliance lead, the founder, or the advisor drafting it for a client.

• Open your current accessibility statement. If it has a feedback mechanism and an enforcement-procedure link, it is modelled on the Web Accessibility Directive. Keep it if you also fall under that directive; do not file it as your EAA compliance.
• Move the Annex V content into your general terms and conditions or an equivalent document. That location is prescribed, not stylistic.
• Rewrite the core section to describe how each applicable Annex I requirement is met, not which standard you audited against.
• Produce an oral version. A narrated audio file of the same content, linked from the same place, is the minimum.
• Delete any sentence claiming full conformance unless it is true for every applicable requirement.

What Article 13(2) actually says

Service providers shall prepare the necessary information in accordance with Annex V and shall explain how the services meet the applicable accessibility requirements. The information shall be made available to the public in written and oral format, including in a manner which is accessible to persons with disabilities. Service providers shall keep that information for as long as the service is in operation.

Four obligations in one paragraph, and three of them are routinely missed.

1. Prepare the information in accordance with Annex V.
2. Explain how the services meet the applicable requirements.
3. Make it public in written and oral format, in a manner accessible to persons with disabilities.
4. Keep it for as long as the service is in operation.

Legalithm materials are operational guidance only and do not constitute legal advice.

What Annex V requires, point by point

Point 1 puts the information in a specific place and gives it three elements:

The service provider shall include the information assessing how the service meets the accessibility requirements referred to in Article 4 in the general terms and conditions, or equivalent document.

Then, where applicable:

• (a) a general description of the service in accessible formats,
• (b) descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of the operation of the service,
• (c) a description of how the relevant accessibility requirements set out in Annex I are met by the service.

Point 2 permits applying harmonised standards in full or in part, "for which references have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union". As of August 2026 no harmonised standard has been cited under this Directive, so this route is currently unavailable. It is authored into the law and inoperative in practice.

Point 3 is a separate duty and the one people skip entirely:

The service provider shall provide information demonstrating that the service delivery process and its monitoring ensure compliance of the service with point 1 of this Annex and with the applicable requirements of this Directive.

Point 1 is about the service. Point 3 is about the process that keeps the service compliant. They are not the same document and one does not satisfy the other.

Why point 1(c) is harder than it looks

"A description of how the relevant accessibility requirements set out in Annex I are met."

Every scanner, every overlay dashboard and every audit tool in this market produces a list of violations. You cannot render 1(c) from a list of what is broken without silently assuming that anything unfound is satisfied. That assumption is exactly what the FTC fined accessiBe USD 1 million for asserting in a different form.

Annex I Section III alone has a chapeau, four lettered points and seven sub-points under (b). Section IV(g) adds three more for e-commerce. Section VII adds eleven functional performance criteria. For each applicable one, 1(c) wants a sentence about how it is met.

• ✗ "This service was audited against EN 301 549 and found conformant."
• ✓ "Annex I Section III(c): websites and mobile applications are perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Verified by expert review against EN 301 549 clause 9 on 4 November 2026 across 14 user flows, with results retained."

The second sentence is what 1(c) asks for. It also happens to be the sentence that survives a reasoned request under Article 13(5).

Real-world example: a shop publishes "we conform to WCAG 2.1 AA". A user reports that the checkout traps keyboard focus. The statement now documents a claim the operator cannot support, on a surface the operator controls, dated. It is worse than having published nothing.

The oral format

This is the part with no vendor solution, and it is unambiguous in the text: the information "shall be made available to the public in written and oral format".

Reading it narrowly as an accessibility affordance still gets you to the same place. Written text alone is not available to everyone; a spoken rendering is a different sensory channel, which is the pattern Annex I uses throughout ("via more than one sensory channel").

What satisfies it, in ascending order of effort:

• a narrated audio file of the same content, published alongside the written version and linked from the same place,
• the same, kept in sync by generating it from the written source whenever that changes,
• a staffed channel that will read the information to a caller on request, documented in the statement itself.

A text-to-speech button on the page is arguably the weakest of these, because it depends on the user's device and on the page rendering correctly to begin with. If you use one, publish the audio file too.

It is not the Web Accessibility Directive statement

Worth spelling out, because the two are constantly conflated.

If you fall under both, you owe both documents. Many public-law bodies do: a public university or a statutory health insurer is a public sector body for the Web Accessibility Directive and a service provider under the EAA for anything it sells to consumers.

Common pitfalls, and how to avoid them

1. Using a generator built on the wrong directive. Most German Barrierefreiheitserklärung generators copy the BITV or public-sector template. Check whether the output has a feedback mechanism and an enforcement link. If it does, it is the WAD model.
2. Claiming full conformance. The single most damaging sentence you can publish. Describe what is met, name what is not, and say what you are doing about it. A statement with known limitations is defensible. A false one is evidence.
3. Writing it once. Article 13(3) requires procedures so conformity survives changes in the service, in the requirements, and in the standards. A statement that has not been touched since launch contradicts the existence of those procedures.
4. Skipping Annex V point 3. Point 1 describes the service. Point 3 requires evidence that the delivery process and its monitoring keep it compliant. Two different things, and only one of them is a document about your product.

Where does the EAA accessibility information have to be published?

In the general terms and conditions, or an equivalent document, under Annex V point 1. That location is prescribed by the Directive. A standalone accessibility page is not what Annex V asks for, though nothing stops you publishing it in both places.

Does the European Accessibility Act really require an oral format?

Yes. Article 13(2) states the information "shall be made available to the public in written and oral format, including in a manner which is accessible to persons with disabilities". A narrated audio version of the same content, published alongside the written version, is the minimum practical way to satisfy it.

Is the EAA accessibility statement the same as the one under the Web Accessibility Directive?

No. The Web Accessibility Directive statement follows the model in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523 and requires a feedback mechanism and a link to the enforcement procedure. The EAA requires the Annex V information in the terms and conditions or an equivalent document, in written and oral format, kept for as long as the service is in operation.

How long do I have to keep the accessibility information?

For as long as the service is in operation, under Article 13(2). That is different from the five-year retention that applies to product technical documentation and the EU declaration of conformity under Article 7(3), and to Article 14 disproportionate burden assessments under Article 14(3).

Can I just say we comply with EN 301 549?

Annex V point 2 permits applying harmonised standards whose references have been published in the Official Journal. None has been published under this Directive, so that route is currently unavailable, and EN 301 549 is harmonised under the Web Accessibility Directive rather than the EAA. Describe how the Annex I requirements are met, and cite EN 301 549 as the method you used to verify it.

Official legal text

• Directive (EU) 2019/882, Article 13 and Annex V: EUR-Lex HTML · ELI
• Directive (EU) 2016/2102, Web Accessibility Directive: EUR-Lex
• Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523, model accessibility statement: EUR-Lex

Disclaimer

Legalithm materials are operational guidance only and do not constitute legal advice. The authentic texts are those published in the Official Journal of the European Union and prevail over this representation in every case.