Product Updates
Get the latest platform updates, features, and announcements—all in one place.
-
August 22, 2025
What Every Organization Should Know About Rising Accessibility Lawsuits
In fact, according to the 2025 Midyear Accessibility Lawsuit Report, “digital accessibility lawsuits are on track to surge nearly 20 percent in 2025, with over 2,000 cases already filed in the first half of the year.” At the halfway point of the year, more than 2,019 digital accessibility lawsuits were filed, the report says. If the pace continues, the U.S. is expected to see over 4,975 lawsuits by the end of the year. Of particular note for institutions and organizations is where the cases are being filed. Increasingly, plaintiffs and their attorneys are choosing state over federal courts, which could have significant implications for how organizations think about digital accessibility compliance.What’s Driving the Change?
Several factors are driving plaintiffs toward state courts: Less Rigorous Standing Requirements: Federal courts, particularly in high-volume jurisdictions, are becoming increasingly skeptical of serial plaintiffs. Recent New York district court decisions show federal judges demanding more proof that plaintiffs have a genuine intent to use websites and legitimate standing to sue. Judicial Fatigue: Federal courts where the same plaintiffs repeatedly appear before the same judges are showing signs of fatigue with accessibility litigation. State systems offer fresh venues with more judges and courts. Different Legal Standards: State courts often provide more plaintiff-friendly interpretations of accessibility obligations and may offer additional legal theories beyond federal ADA claims.What this Means for Institutions and Organizations
Addressing individual complaints does not protect your organization from future lawsuits. In 2024, 40 percent of accessibility lawsuits targeted companies that had already been sued. Those using digital platforms must proactively develop and maintain comprehensive accessibility programs that address both federal and state regulations. Keep in mind: the shift to state courts doesn’t change the underlying compliance requirements. Digital platforms used by institutions and organizations must still meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, with particular attention to:- Captions and transcripts for all video content
- Audio descriptions for visual elements
- Keyboard navigation capabilities
- Screen reader compatibility
Best Accessibility Practices
Accessibility requires ongoing attention as technology evolves and content changes. Organizational leaders should build accessibility considerations into your development and content creation processes. Best practices include: Implement Comprehensive Accessibility Audits: Regular accessibility testing should combine automated scanning with manual expert review and assistive technology testing. Automated tools alone miss 60-70 percent of accessibility issues. Establish Accessibility Governance: Create clear policies for digital accessibility, including procurement standards that require WCAG compliance from vendors. Designate accessibility coordinators and provide staff training. Focus on Common Problem Areas: Educational technology often involves complex interactions that can create accessibility barriers:- Video players that aren’t keyboard accessible
- Interactive content without alternative formats
- Mobile apps that don’t work with assistive technologies
- PDFs and documents that aren’t properly tagged
-
July 23, 2025
Understanding YuJa’s Website Accessibility Widget
While overlays themselves can offer real value when used appropriately, certain vendors have promoted them with misleading claims, suggesting they can make any website fully accessible or compliant with standards like the ADA or WCAG without addressing the site’s underlying accessibility issues. This has resulted in reputational damage and, in some cases, legal action directed at the vendors themselves, specifically in response to inaccurate or misleading marketing claims. YuJa takes a fundamentally different and transparent approach.Transparent Purpose and Scope
YuJa does not market or represent the Website Accessibility Widget as a tool that makes websites accessible or compliant with accessibility standards. It is not a substitute for accessible design, semantic HTML, keyboard navigation, or content remediation. Instead, the widget is designed to enhance the user experience by offering flexible, user-controlled adjustments to how web content is displayed. It acts as an interface personalization layer — not a compliance solution or overlay that modifies site code or structure.Value Through Personalization
While it is not intended to address accessibility at the source-code level, the widget provides meaningful support for users who benefit from visual or cognitive adjustments to their digital environment. Key features include:- Adjustable Visual Settings: Users can control text size, spacing, alignment, contrast, and color filters.
- Focus and Cognitive Tools: Reading masks, enlarged cursors, and the ability to reduce visual clutter support users with ADHD, dyslexia, and related needs.
- Predefined Accessibility Profiles: One-click profiles for common conditions provide fast, accessible customizations.
- Document Format Options: When paired with YuJa Panorama, users can access documents in alternative formats such as MP3, ePub, or Braille.
A Complement to Proper Accessibility Practices
The widget is intended to complement, not replace, institutional accessibility efforts. When used alongside standards-aligned development and accessibility remediation tools such as YuJa EqualGround and YuJa Panorama, the widget enhances inclusivity by giving users more control over how they engage with content.Supporting Inclusion Through Clarity
YuJa’s Website Accessibility Widget offers value by supporting personalization and improving usability for many individuals, particularly those who benefit from dynamic adjustments to content presentation. However, it is not a shortcut to accessibility. By combining the widget with proper content design, testing, and remediation, institutions can strengthen digital inclusion while maintaining clarity about the tool’s intended purpose. -
June 20, 2025
Tharpe v. Osseo: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Digital Accessibility in Education
For leaders in higher education, ensuring digital accessibility isn’t just about legal compliance, it’s about creating inclusive learning environments that serve all students.Understanding the Tharpe v Osseo Case
The case centered on Ava Tharpe, a teenage student with a severe form of epilepsy that causes frequent seizures, especially in the morning. Her condition made it impossible to attend traditional school hours, so she needed evening instruction to receive the same amount of education as her peers. The family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota, where her new school district refused to accommodate her needs. Ava’s family sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Her father told NPR that the legal challenge wasn’t just about Ava’s specific situation, but for all families and their “right of access for their children to educational opportunities.” Federal appeals courts had been split on what standard schools should be held to when families claim discrimination. Some courts required families to prove schools acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a much higher bar than other disability discrimination cases. Other courts applied the standard “deliberate indifference” test used everywhere else. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that schools should be judged under the same “deliberate indifference” standard as other institutions, not a special, tougher standard just because they’re schools. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, students with disabilities face “daunting challenges on a daily basis” and shouldn’t have to meet a higher legal standard than other discrimination plaintiffs.What the Decision Means for Institutions
The Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message that educational institutions need comprehensive approaches to accessibility. Research from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows two-thirds of higher education students with disabilities do not inform their schools about their needs, meaning many students are struggling with inaccessible content without institutions even knowing it. Rather than waiting for students to request accommodations, or file discrimination complaints, institutions need systems that ensure content is accessible from the moment it’s created. Modern accessibility requires:- Proactive content scanning to identify accessibility barriers before students encounter them
- Automatic alternative formats like audio versions, high-contrast displays, Braille formats, and language translations
- Real-time remediation tools that allow instructors to fix issues immediately
- Institution-wide visibility through dashboards that track accessibility across the digital learning ecosystem
-
June 16, 2025
Understanding Accessibility Scoring Rubrics
Enter accessibility scoring rubrics, or measurement frameworks that better reflect how accessibility issues impact users. For example, one document might have 50 issues yet score better than another document with only five issues. While it might seem counterintuitive, the issue types and user impact matters. This is why accessibility scoring rubrics are now important tools for organizations as they manage digital accessibility. Unlike traditional grading systems that apply uniform criteria, accessibility scoring rubrics can be customized to reflect an organization’s specific accessibility priorities, available resources, and strategic goals.Accessibility Scoring Rubric Types and Use Cases
YuJa Panorama offers a variety of accessibility scoring rubrics: Dynamic Severity Models assign scores within ranges based on the highest severity level detected. If a document contains minor, major, and severe issues, the score falls within the range of the most serious problem found. This helps ensure that critical barriers significantly impact the overall accessibility rating while still allowing for nuanced scoring within severity categories. Organizations often choose this model when they want scores that reflect the most serious accessibility barriers while maintaining granular feedback for improvement efforts. It’s particularly valuable for institutions that need to prioritize remediation efforts based on user impact. Static Severity Models assign fixed scores based solely on the highest severity level present. A document with any severe issues receives the lowest possible score, regardless of how many minor problems it might also contain. This binary approach creates clear, unambiguous scoring that emphasizes the most critical barriers. This framework works well for organizations that need straightforward prioritization systems or when working with teams that respond better to clear, definitive scoring rather than nuanced ranges. Element-Based Models evaluate accessibility by examining whether specific document elements—paragraphs, tables, headers, lists, links, images, videos, and pages—pass or fail accessibility checks. The score reflects the proportion of accessible elements rather than the total number of individual issues. Educational institutions often gravitate toward this approach because it aligns with how content creators think about document structure. It’s particularly effective when working with faculty who build modular content or when the goal is encouraging systematic accessibility practices across different content types. Weight-Based Models evaluate all failed checks according to assigned weights, with severity levels influencing how much each issue affects the overall score. Organizations can customize these weights to reflect their specific priorities and user needs. The real power of weight-based scoring lies in customization. Organizations can adjust the weight values for minor, major, and severe issues to reflect their specific priorities. For example, if an institution wants to emphasize fixing severe barriers that completely block access, they might assign severe issues a weight of 10 while keeping minor issues at a weight of 1. This flexibility ensures that accessibility scores truly reflect what matters most to each organization’s users and goals. Detraction Models treat failed accessibility checks as twice as impactful as passed checks, creating scoring systems that incentivize resolving problems rather than simply maintaining accessible elements. This methodology encourages active remediation efforts. Content creators often respond well to this framework because it clearly demonstrates the value of fixing accessibility issues and provides measurable improvement pathways. Strict Detraction Models begin with perfect scores and subtract points based on issue weights and severity levels. This approach rewards comprehensive accessible design while providing clear improvement pathways through systematic issue resolution. Using the right model means teams can quickly identify what needs attention, see the impact of remediation, and track progress over time. This also helps teams allocate time and resources where they’ll have maximum impact. The ability to select from a variety of rubrics that align with organizational priorities helps ensure that no matter your accessibility goals, there’s a rubric that can help achieve those goals. Learn more about scoring rubric types -
June 9, 2025
Getting EAA Ready: Understanding the EU’s New Accessibility Standards
The EAA is “a directive that aims to improve the functioning of the internal market for accessible products and services, by removing barriers created by divergent rules in Member States,” according to the European Commission. As a landmark piece of legislation, the EAA establishes common accessibility requirements across all 27 EU member states. The EAA sets functional accessibility requirements, meaning it focuses on what needs to be accessible rather than setting specific technical solutions. This approach allows organizations to innovate while ensuring their products and services work for everyone. Notably, the EAA extends beyond EU borders, applying to all public and private organizations that serve the EU market. The legislation applies to businesses with at least 10 employees and annual revenue above approximately $2.1 million USD (€2 million), though some member states have set their own specific thresholds and exemptions.Covered Products and Services
The European Parliament formally approved the European Accessibility Act on March 13, 2019, establishing the first comprehensive accessibility legislation of its kind across the European Union. The directive was designed to complement existing EU accessibility legislation while expanding requirements to private sector organizations. According to the European Commission’s fact sheet, the EAA encompasses a range of products and services, including: Digital Services:- E-commerce websites and mobile applications
- Banking services, including online and mobile banking platforms
- E-books and digital reading materials
- Audiovisual media services and broadcasting platforms
- Computers, smartphones, and operating systems
- ATMs, ticketing machines, and self-service terminals
- Television equipment and related digital services
- Air, bus, rail, and waterborne passenger transport services
- Perceivable: Information must be presentable in ways users can perceive
- Operable: Interface components must be operable by all users
- Understandable: Information and UI operation must be understandable
- Robust: Content must be robust enough to work with various assistive technologies
EAA Enforcement and Compliance
The EAA establishes a framework where enforcement is managed at the national level. Each EU Member State determines penalties for noncompliance and designates enforcement bodies, with the EAA requiring that penalties be “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.” According to the legislation, EU Member States must ensure adequate means exist for compliance enforcement under national law, including access to national courts and competent administrative bodies for consumers and advocacy groups. Organizations may face legal action from individuals or advocacy groups representing people with disabilities, potentially resulting in lawsuits, court orders, or settlements requiring accessibility improvements. The deadline for compliance is June 28, 2025. Organizations in the EU and those abroad that serve EU customers should have a plan to meet this deadline. Need help? Reach out for a demo of YuJa’s suite of accessibility and compliance solutions.
Join the 1,000+ Organizations Deploying High-Impact Solutions
A collection of logos representing various organizations and institutions that use YuJa’s platform.