accessiBe
accessiBe, founded in 2018 in Israel, is an AI-powered web accessibility platform that uses automated scanning and remediation to bring websites toward WCAG 2.1 compliance. CRITICA…
What is accessiBe?
accessiBe, founded in 2018 in Israel, is an AI-powered web accessibility platform that uses automated scanning and remediation to bring websites toward WCAG 2.1 compliance. CRITICAL: The FTC levied a $1 million fine against accessiBe in January 2025 for deceptive marketing regarding WCAG compliance. The National Federation of the Blind formally opposes all overlay approaches. True accessibility requires structural source-code level remediation, not overlay widgets.
Common Use Cases for Law Firms
- Automate accessibility remediation with AI-powered code adjustments
- Provide a visible accessibility interface for user-controlled adjustments
- Generate an accessibility statement and compliance certificate
- Address ADA compliance for law firms that handle disability-related cases
How We Detect It
Market Overview
Among personal injury law firms, accessiBe has been adopted by 461 firms (1.3% adoption rate) as a accessibility solution. Adopters score 53.2 SI on average, +24.9 points higher than firms without it, suggesting accessiBe correlates with broader technology investment. The heaviest adoption comes from the Conversion-Focused Firms segment (2.5%), followed by Basic Tech Adopters (1.6%). The most common co-occurring tools are Google Analytics (found on 89.8% of accessiBe adopters) and WordPress (65.3%).
Get connected
Request an introduction from Top Dog Law — we'll make the connection on your behalf.
Adoption by State
ME
—
VT
—
NH
—
WA
—
MT
—
ND
—
MN
—
WI
—
MI
—
NY
—
MA
—
RI
—
OR
—
ID
—
WY
—
SD
—
IA
—
IL
—
IN
—
OH
—
PA
—
NJ
—
CT
—
CA
—
NV
—
CO
—
NE
—
MO
—
KY
—
WV
—
VA
—
MD
—
DE
—
DC
—
AZ
—
UT
—
KS
—
AR
—
TN
—
NC
—
SC
—
NM
—
OK
—
LA
—
MS
—
AL
—
GA
—
AK
—
HI
—
TX
—
FL
—
0
—
Adoption by Segment
which segments use accessiBe most
Commonly Paired With
co-occurrence
accessiBe Best Practices
1
Given the FTC's January 2025 $1 million fine against accessiBe for deceptive compliance claims, law firms using accessiBe should immediately add a disclosure to their accessibility statement that does not repeat accessiBe's marketing language. The FTC's consent order prohibits accessiBe from claiming their product produces WCAG-compliant websites. If your accessibility statement was generated by accessiBe and includes language about WCAG 2.1 compliance, that language needs to be revised. Specifically, remove any claim that the site is "fully accessible" or "WCAG 2.1 compliant" and replace with accurate language: "We use an accessibility overlay and are actively remediating our site's underlying HTML." Plaintiff attorneys in ADA cases will check your accessibility statement, and overstated claims are exploitable.
2
Do not use accessiBe's compliance certificate as evidence of ADA compliance in any legal proceeding or vendor questionnaire. accessiBe sells a compliance certificate. Following the FTC action, this certificate has no legal standing as evidence of WCAG compliance and may actually draw negative attention by invoking a product associated with federal deceptive practice findings. If you need documented compliance evidence for institutional clients, vendor questionnaires, or defense against an ADA demand letter, commission an independent WCAG audit from a certified accessibility professional (IAAP CPWA or WAS certification). The third-party audit is defensible; the accessiBe certificate is not.
3
Use accessiBe's interface widget as an immediate visitor accessibility aid while planning a structural remediation roadmap. Despite its compliance controversies, accessiBe's visitor-facing widget — which provides controls for font size, contrast, cursor size, and reading guides — does offer genuine utility to some visitors. Don't disable it abruptly if you have disabled clients who've learned to use it. Instead, treat it as a temporary measure while your developer works through actual HTML-level fixes from a WAVE audit. Communicate internally that the overlay is a bridge, not a destination.
4
Run a competing WAVE audit against your accessiBe-protected site and use the delta to create a genuine remediation list. WAVE (wave.webaim.org) is a free, independent tool that checks actual HTML accessibility — not the presentation layer that accessiBe modifies. Run WAVE on your site with accessiBe active. Every error WAVE still reports is something accessiBe did not fix. This list is your real remediation backlog. Assign the top 10-20 issues to your developer with effort estimates. Fixing these structural issues reduces your legal exposure more than any overlay setting ever could.
5
If you're evaluating switching away from accessiBe, do it during your next website redesign — not as an isolated change. Switching from accessiBe to another tool (or to structural remediation) mid-cycle creates a temporary state where your site has neither the overlay nor the underlying fixes. If you're planning a website redesign in the next 12 months, build WCAG 2.1 AA compliance into the redesign requirements and eliminate the overlay dependency at the same time. If a redesign is not planned, keep accessiBe active while your developer addresses the highest-priority WAVE errors — a partial structural fix plus a disclosed overlay is more defensible than neither.
Alternatives to accessiBe
1
Manual WCAG 2.1 AA remediation — The only approach that actually produces accessible websites. Budget $3,000-$10,000 for a certified accessibility consultant to audit your site and produce a prioritized fix list. Your developer implements the fixes (missing alt text, keyboard navigation, ARIA labels, form labels) in the actual HTML. The result is a site that works with screen readers without depending on a third-party JavaScript widget loading correctly on every page visit. In any ADA demand letter situation, this is the evidence that matters.
2
UserWay — Similar overlay approach but without the FTC enforcement action on its record. UserWay has been more transparent about the limitations of overlay-based accessibility and positions itself as one component of a broader strategy rather than a complete compliance solution. If your firm needs an overlay widget for visitor-facing accessibility controls while structural fixes are in progress, UserWay is the more defensible choice given accessiBe's regulatory history.
3
AudioEye — Hybrid overlay model that combines JavaScript remediation with human expert review of accessibility issues. AudioEye's monitoring platform tracks compliance status over time and provides evidence of ongoing remediation effort — which courts and regulators respond more favorably to than a one-time widget installation. More expensive than accessiBe or UserWay, but the combination of monitoring, documentation, and litigation support makes AudioEye the most defensible overlay option for high-risk firms.
4
Siteimprove Accessibility — Enterprise accessibility monitoring that identifies issues and tracks remediation without attempting to auto-fix them via JavaScript injection. For PI firms with significant web presence (50+ pages, multiple practice area microsites), Siteimprove's continuous monitoring and developer-friendly issue reporting creates a documented trail of compliance effort that's valuable in both ADA defense and institutional client due diligence. Does not provide visitor-facing controls, but pairs well with structural remediation.
accessiBe Power Moves
1
Generate a WAVE audit report for your firm's website and save it with a timestamp — this becomes your baseline compliance documentation predating any future ADA demand letter. Run wave.webaim.org on your site today, take a full-page screenshot of the results, and save it as a PDF with today's date in the filename. If you later receive an ADA demand letter, your dated baseline shows you were aware of accessibility issues and actively working on them. Subsequent WAVE audits showing fewer errors demonstrate good-faith remediation effort. This documentation costs nothing and could be relevant if litigation ever arises.
2
Add an accessibility contact link to your website footer that routes to a real person who can respond within 24 hours. Both the ADA and WCAG guidelines recommend providing a mechanism for users to request accessibility accommodations. Add a line to your footer: "Need accessibility assistance? Contact us at [accessibility@yourdomain.com]." Route this alias to your office manager or intake coordinator. When a disabled visitor can't use your contact form and emails that address, someone responds with an alternative (phone, mail, in-person). This demonstrates genuine good faith that no overlay widget can replicate.
3
Check your competitor sites with WAVE before any ADA-related conversations about your own firm's accessibility. Run WAVE on your top 3-5 competitors' websites. If they have more accessibility errors than you, document this — it provides context that you are not the least accessible firm in your market. More importantly, if a competitor recently upgraded to structural accessibility (fewer than 20 WAVE errors), that's a signal that the bar is rising and your firm should accelerate its own remediation roadmap.
Is your firm using accessiBe?
Claim your firm profile to verify your tech stack and access premium competitive intelligence. Not listed yet? Apply to get added.
Top Firms Using accessiBe
by sophistication index
| # | Firm | Segment | Attorneys | SI Score | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 3 | 94.695 | A+ |
| 2 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 9 | 94.094 | A+ |
| 3 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 59 | 94.094 | A+ |
| 4 |
|
Retention Innovators | 13 | 93.894 | A+ |
| 5 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 26 | 93.894 | A+ |
| 6 |
|
Retention Innovators | 1 | 93.093 | A+ |
| 7 |
|
— | 8 | 93.093 | A+ |
| 8 |
|
Retention Innovators | 4 | 92.893 | A+ |
| 9 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 19 | 92.893 | A+ |
| 10 |
|
Retention Innovators | 33 | 92.092 | A+ |
| 11 |
|
Retention Innovators | 16 | 91.892 | A+ |
| 12 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 1 | 91.091 | A+ |
| 13 |
|
Retention Innovators | 32 | 91.091 | A+ |
| 14 |
|
Retention Innovators | 34 | 91.091 | A+ |
| 15 |
|
Retention Innovators | 117 | 91.091 | A+ |
| 16 |
|
Retention Innovators | 22 | 91.091 | A+ |
| 17 |
|
Retention Innovators | 35 | 90.090 | A+ |
| 18 |
|
Retention Innovators | 136 | 90.090 | A+ |
| 19 |
|
Retention Innovators | 15 | 90.090 | A+ |
| 20 |
|
Conversion-Focused Firms | 20 | 84.584 | A+ |
