Public libraries should implement WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) now primarily due to impending legal mandates under the ADA Title II rule, ethical imperatives to serve all patrons equitably, operational benefits, and risk mitigation.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) final rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires state and local government entities—including public libraries—to make their web content and mobile apps accessible. The technical standard is WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
- Equity and Mission Alignment: Libraries exist to provide equal access to information. WCAG helps ensure people with disabilities (e.g., vision, hearing, motor, cognitive) can fully use websites, catalogs, digital collections, event registrations, and apps. This aligns with core library values of access, equity, and inclusion. Non-compliance excludes patrons and contradicts the profession’s commitment to serving everyone.
- Broader Usability Benefits: Accessible design improves experiences for all users—e.g., better mobile performance, clearer navigation, captions that help in noisy environments, and logical structure that aids everyone. It can boost engagement, SEO, and marketing effectiveness.
- Risk Reduction: Lawsuits under the ADA for inaccessible websites are common. Compliance reduces legal exposure, potential damages, and reputational harm. Proactive steps (audits, remediation plans, feedback mechanisms) demonstrate good faith.
The legal risks for public libraries (and the municipalities or districts they serve) of not implementing WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility stem primarily from the ADA Title II rule, with potential for DOJ enforcement, private lawsuits, financial penalties, and other consequences
Primary Legal Framework
- ADA Title II: Applies directly to state and local government entities, including public libraries. The DOJ’s 2024 final rule (with extended deadlines: April 26, 2027, for larger populations; 2028 for smaller) makes WCAG 2.1 Level AA the clear standard for web content and mobile apps. Non-compliance after the deadline is a violation of federal law.
- Related Laws: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (for federally funded entities) and potentially state laws. Libraries often face overlapping obligations.
Key Risks and Consequences
- Private Lawsuits by Individuals:
- People with disabilities (or advocacy groups) can sue for injunctive relief (forcing fixes), attorney’s fees, and, in some cases, compensatory damages.
- Settlements often include remediation costs, ongoing monitoring, and policy changes. Even “frivolous” or serial suits create defense expenses.
- Precedents exist for government websites and similar public services; post-deadline suits are expected to rise significantly.
- DOJ Enforcement Actions:
- The Department of Justice can investigate complaints, pursue civil actions, and impose civil monetary penalties (adjusted for inflation: ~$115,000+ for a first violation, higher for repeats under related frameworks).
- Outcomes often include consent decrees requiring full compliance, training, reporting, and timelines.
- Financial Exposure:
- Direct penalties and settlements: Tens to hundreds of thousands per case, plus plaintiff’s legal fees.
- Remediation costs: Fixing websites/apps, training, audits, and vendor updates—often far higher if done reactively under court order.
- Indirect costs: Loss of grants/funding (if tied to Section 504), reputational damage, and diverted resources from library services.
- Reputational and Operational Harm:
- Public backlash for failing to serve disabled patrons equitably.
- Vendor/contract risks: Third-party providers may face indemnity claims, and libraries remain liable for inaccessible contracted services.
- Challenges to the deadline extension (e.g., ongoing NFB lawsuit) could accelerate effective deadlines or increase scrutiny.
- Why the Risk Is Growing Now
- Even before the deadlines, general ADA obligations exist— the new rule provides specific, enforceable technical standards that strengthen plaintiffs’ and DOJ cases. Many libraries and governments have already faced suits over inaccessible PDFs, forms, navigation, or screen reader incompatibility.
- Mitigation: Proactive audits, remediation plans, vendor requirements (VPATs), and feedback mechanisms for barriers significantly reduce risk and show good-faith compliance. For your TBS clients, helping them document progress toward WCAG can be a strong selling point.
- In short, the legal risk is real, escalating post-deadline, and includes both monetary and operational impacts—starting compliance efforts now is a prudent risk-management strategy aligned with library values. Consult legal counsel for entity-specific advice, as enforcement can vary by jurisdiction.
