E-commerce Expansion into the EU and US Public Sector
An online retailer with 85 employees and €45 million annual turnover sells household goods in the US and plans to launch an EU-facing site in four months. It also wants to bid on a US federal contract worth $2 million. The current site was built in 2019, has a “skip to content” link, but product filters are mouse-only, checkout has a 3-minute timeout, and PDF manuals lack tags. The VP of product says, “We only need WCAG 2.1 A because that is what the checklist says,” and proposes an accessibility overlay widget with a monthly subscription. Legal asks which laws apply, which standard to target, and whether the overlay reduces risk. The company has no accessibility statement, no VPAT, and no testing with disabled users. The EU launch includes consumer sales, not just B2B.
1. Identify the likely legal and procurement obligations for the EU site and the US federal bid, and explain why “WCAG 2.1 A only” is inadequate.
Read the worked answer
Model answer
For the EU-facing consumer site, the European Accessibility Act is the key driver. It applies to e-commerce services offered to consumers and takes effect on 28 June 2025. The microenterprise exemption does not apply here: the company has 85 employees and €45 million turnover, above the thresholds (fewer than 10 employees and no more than €2 million). The presumption of conformity is via the harmonised standard EN 301 549, which references WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content. The company should also expect accessibility information and a contact mechanism.
For the US federal bid, Section 508 applies to the ICT the agency procures. The Revised 508 standards incorporate WCAG 2.0 Level AA, and the agency will likely require an ACR/VPAT. The company should also consider ADA Title III risk for its US consumer site, even though Title III web standards are not spelled out in a single regulation.
“WCAG 2.1 A only” is inadequate because Level A omits many barriers that matter in commerce: 4.5:1 contrast for normal text, text resize and reflow, keyboard focus visibility, consistent navigation, and error identification. Level AA is the baseline in both EN 301 549 and Section 508. The overlay does not change the underlying code and is not a substitute for conformance.
2. Recommend a conformance target, testing plan, and documentation package for the next four months.
Read the worked answer
Model answer
Target WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the baseline, because it satisfies the EN 301 549 reference for the EU and covers the WCAG 2.0 AA requirements used by Section 508. Add selected WCAG 2.2 AA criteria where feasible-especially focus not obscured, dragging movements, target size, and consistent help-but do not replace the 2.1 AA baseline without legal advice. The product should publish a realistic accessibility statement, not a badge.
Four-month testing plan:
- Weeks 1–2: baseline audit of high-risk flows: product filters, checkout timeout, PDF manuals, login, and error handling. Use automated tools plus manual keyboard and screen-reader testing.
- Weeks 3–8: remediate critical defects; make filters keyboard-operable, extend or warn before the 3-minute timeout, tag or replace PDFs, add accessible names and status messages.
- Weeks 6–10: test with disabled users on NVDA/JAWS, VoiceOver, keyboard only, 200% zoom, and mobile. Log defects by severity.
- Weeks 10–16: retest, produce an ACR/VPAT 2.5 INT with honest “supports/partially supports/does not support” ratings, and publish the accessibility statement and feedback contact.
The documentation package should include scope, methods, date, known gaps, and a remediation roadmap. The overlay should not be listed as evidence of conformance.
3. The VP argues the overlay is cheaper and faster than remediation. How should you respond, and what metrics should be reported to leadership?
Read the worked answer
Model answer
The overlay is cheaper in subscription cost but not in risk. It typically injects scripts that change the page after load, which can conflict with screen readers, keyboard focus, and zoom; it does not fix unlabeled controls, mouse-only filters, or untagged PDFs in the source. It also creates a misleading impression of compliance. Procurement officers and regulators increasingly ask for evidence of conformance and user testing, not a widget. The company should compare the overlay subscription with the cost of fixing the checkout and filter flows, and treat remediation as part of the EU launch budget.
Metrics to report to leadership:
- Conformance by critical flow: percentage of checkout, filter, login, and account flows that pass WCAG 2.1 AA manual checks.
- Critical defect closure: number of severity-1 and severity-2 accessibility defects open and closed per release.
- Task success by disabled testers: completion rate and time for representative tasks, with severity of blockers.
- Complaint and support trends: accessibility contacts, resolution time, and repeat issues.
- Procurement readiness: current ACR/VPAT coverage and percentage of bids with required documentation.
Report legal exposure and customer impact, not widget usage. A dashboard that shows “overlay enabled” is not evidence that disabled customers can buy products.