The short answer is often yes. But the more useful answer requires separating two distinct parts of the ADA, because they apply differently and because the legal picture has become significantly clearer in recent years, particularly for public entities.
I work with a lot of organizations that are trying to understand their obligations and the single most common mistake I see is treating accessibility compliance as a single question with a single answer. Whether the ADA requires digital accessibility for your organization depends on who you are, what you offer, and how your digital experiences connect to the goods and services you provide. Let’s walk through what the law says.
For state and local governments, this is now among the clearest areas of digital accessibility law in the United States. In 2024, the Department of Justice issued a final rule updating Title II of the ADA specifically to address web content and mobile applications. The rule establishes WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard and sets concrete compliance timelines: large public entities must generally comply by April 24, 2026, and smaller public entities and special district governments must generally comply by April 26, 2027.
The scope of “state and local governments” is broader than many organizations initially assume. DOJ guidance makes clear it includes not just agencies and departments but also special purpose districts, commuter authorities, and services delivered through third-party contractors. That last point is significant. Governments cannot transfer their accessibility obligations to a vendor and consider the matter resolved. If a contractor is delivering a service on behalf of a public entity, the accessibility obligation follows.
The practical reach of this rule covers entities including:
• Public schools, community colleges, and universities
• Courts and law enforcement agencies
• Elections offices and voter registration systems
• Public hospitals and health departments
• Libraries and cultural institutions
• Transit agencies and transportation authorities
• Benefits programs and social services
This matters because government services have moved online in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago. Paying fees, filing reports, registering for programs, applying for benefits, accessing health information, casting absentee ballots, and joining public meetings may all happen through websites and apps. When those experiences are inaccessible, people with disabilities are blocked from the civic participation that everyone else takes for granted.
For private-sector organizations, the answer is also serious—though the regulatoryframework is currently less prescriptive than Title II.
Title III ofthe ADA applies to public accommodations: businesses and organizations that are open to the public. It requires that those entities provide people with disabilities full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages. DOJ guidance has long interpreted that obligation to extend to goods and services offered online. In other words, if your business serves the public, your digital presence is part of that service and your ADA obligations follow.
Title III covers a wide range of organizations, including restaurants, hotels, retail stores, banks, healthcare providers, theaters, gyms, private schools, and the vast majority of other businesses that serve the public regardless of size. ADA.gov notes that Title III covers almost all types of public-facing businesses. There are two primary exceptions: religious organizations and qualifying private clubs.
Here is the important nuance: unlike Title II, the DOJ does not currently have a regulation that sets specific technical standards for business websites under Title III. I’ve seen some organizations interpret that absence as permission to delay. That reading is mistaken.
The absence of a detailed Title III web standard does not mean businesses are exempt from web accessibility obligations. It means those obligations are evaluated under the ADA’s broader nondiscrimination and effective communication requirements rather than against a specific technical checklist. DOJ guidance on this has been consistent: businesses must ensure that the goods and services they offer online are accessible to people with disabilities. The legal risk is real, and the volume of ADA-related digital accessibility litigation in the private sector has made that risk increasingly concrete.
Under the 2024 Title II rule, mobile applications are explicitly covered for state and local governments alongside web content. The DOJ’s fact sheet and rule language consistently refer to both web content and mobile applications, and the WCAG2.1 standard was selected in part because it addresses accessibility considerations that are particularly relevant on mobile devices.
For businesses under Title III, if your mobile app is how customers access your goods or services, it is part of the digital experience subject to the ADA’s nondiscrimination and effective communication requirements. The DOJ’s guidance on web accessibility is framed around online goods and services generally, not limited to desktop browsers or specific platforms.
If your organization has invested in digital services and left mobile accessibility unexamined, that is a gap worth closing, both for legal reasons and because mobile is increasingly the primary access point for the people you serve.
A lot of leaders want a clean yes-or-no answer because they are hoping accessibility is either clearly optional or clearly somebody else’s problem. It almost never is. If you’re a public entity, the 2024 Title II rule has given you specific requirements and specific deadlines. Those are already on the calendar. If you’re a business open to the public, your exposure under Title III is real even without a matching Title III web regulation, and the pattern of accessibility litigation in the private sector makes that exposure increasingly difficult to ignore.
What I push back on most consistently is the instinct to treat this as a one-time legal review rather than an ongoing operational commitment. Getting a legal opinion on your ADA exposure is appropriate, but the organizations that manage digital accessibility well are not the ones that had the most thorough legal review. They are the ones that built accessibility into how they plan, design, develop, and deliver so that compliance is an outcome of good practice rather than a scramble triggered by a complaint or a deadline.
That is a program leadership question as much as it is a legal one. Who is accountable for accessibility across the organization? How is it governed? How does it connect to procurement, product, engineering, and communications? How does leadership stay informed about where things stand? Those are the questions that determine whether an organization is genuinely managing its obligations or just hoping nothing surfaces.
If your organization serves the public through a website or mobile application, digital accessibility deserves serious and immediate attention. Because real people depend on digital access to participate in education, healthcare, government, commerce, and daily life. When those experiences are inaccessible, the harm is concrete.
For public entities, the compliance timelines are fixed and approaching. For businesses, the legal and operational risk is real and growing. For both, the most sustainable path forward is a structured, governed accessibility program that builds compliance into the way the organization works.
If your organization is trying to understand what that looks like in practice. What governance, program structure, and operational discipline are needed to manage digital accessibility at scale. I would welcome the conversation. That is the work I do, and I am happy to think through it with you.
Book a call whenever you’re ready.
This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. If you have specific questions about your organization’s ADA obligations, consult qualified legal counsel.
