German Accessibility Act: Green light for more digital inclusion?

Open questions following its entry into force on 28 June 2025

The German Accessibility Act (Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz - BFSG) has been in force since 28 June 2025 and requires many companies to make their products and services accessible. The extensive obligations for interactive electronic products and online shops, among other things, regularly lead to a comprehensive need for adaptation. Particularly problematic is the fact that there is still considerable uncertainty about the need for implementation and the scope of implementation – for example, with regard to market surveillance, the definition of e-commerce services, information obligations and applicable technical standards.

Digital transformation without barriers: Who is affected and what does the law require?

With the BFSG, Germany is implementing the European Accessibility Act (EAA) and obliging companies to offer certain products and services in an accessible manner. The aim is to enable people with disabilities to participate equally in digital life. The regulations affect manufacturers, distributors, importers and service providers who offer their products and services to consumers.

The scope of application covers, in particular, general purpose computer hardware systems, self-service terminals (e.g. ATMs, check-in machines), consumer terminal equipment with interactive computing functionality (e.g. smartphones, tablets and smart TVs), e-readers, e-books and software designed for them, telecommunications services (telephony, messenger services), banking services, elements of passenger transport services (e.g. websites, apps, electronic ticketing services), and – particularly relevant – all services in e-commerce, especially web shops and certain apps for consumers.

The products and services concerned must be designed in such a way that they meet the accessibility requirements set out in the BFSG and the associated regulation (BFSGV). Companies also have assessment, verification and notification obligations, for example with regard to technical documentation, CE marking, declarations of conformity and accessible information about their offers.

Grey areas and hurdles: Where the BFSG still leaves open questions

Legal advisory practice in recent months shows that, even six years after the adoption of the EAA, it is still not sufficiently clear to many companies which in principle consider themselves affected by the BFSG requirements whether they actually fall within the scope of application and what obligations this entails.

Firstly, it is unclear which digital offers specifically qualify as ‘e-commerce services’. According to the BFSG and the EAA, these are services provided at a distance, through websites and mobile device-based services by electronic means and at the individual request of a consumer with a view to concluding a consumer contract. Services, in turn, are those services that are normally provided for remuneration. This suggests that the directive primarily covers websites and apps that feature a ‘Pay now’ button at the end, especially web shops. However, this falls short, as the conclusion of the contract is often initiated much earlier, for example in a newsletter from the service provider or even on the website of a third party that earns money through affiliate links. Other services may only be offered as an ancillary service to an analogue product purchase, such as customer support websites, but are also only available digitally. It is currently difficult to draw a clear line.

Affected service providers must now make information about the implementation of the BFSG requirements accessible to the general public in an accessible form, i.e. as a rule, it must be easy to find on their website. The exact scope of the information on accessibility requirements remains unclear. While some companies point out their compliance gaps, others prefer to hold back. It is also unclear how to deal with situations where one believes that they do not fall within the scope of application. Should you publish accessibility information anyway, just to be on the safe side, especially if you believe you are in a grey area?

The implementation of accessibility requirements is supposed to be made it easier through the application of so-called harmonised European standards. So far, however, only websites and digital offers can refer to the European standard EN 301 549 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1). Incidentally, the standards are still in the process of being developed.

Help from the market surveillance authority is not to be expected, as it does not yet exist. The central market surveillance authority, the Market Surveillance Agency of the Federal States for the Accessibility of Products and Services (MLBF) in Magdeburg, should have been established long ago. As of the deadline on 28 June, it had neither been set up nor was it operational.

Act now: Practical tips for companies on the path to accessibility

Accessibility opens up new target groups for companies and is a topic of great social relevance. Voluntary efforts to achieve greater inclusion are now being complemented by considerable legal, technical and organisational challenges. Action is now needed to minimise compliance risks and avoid sanctions such as fines, bans or product recalls.

To this end, it must first be examined whether and to what extent the products and services fall under the BFSG. In particular, digital offerings, websites, apps and online shops should be reviewed. Websites often require far-reaching and labour-intensive adjustments. For BFSG-compliant information on accessibility, individual risks and requirements should be carefully classified so as not to become a target for competitors or the market surveillance authority.

Only in a few exceptional cases are transition periods likely to apply or companies likely to fall outside the scope of application. Particular caution is advised if a company operates internationally. The obligations under the EAA may vary in their national implementation in the various member states.

Conclusion

Companies should not wait for the first wave of warning letters or moves by the market surveillance authority, but should take action now. Early legal analysis and legally compliant implementation of the BFSG requirements are crucial to avoid fines, warnings and reputational damage – while at the same time taking advantage of the opportunities offered by an inclusive digital society.