Why Isn’t There a DOJ Regulation for Website Accessibility Under the ADA?
Store owners researching ADA website compliance usually expect to find a rule — a specific regulation, with a number, that says exactly what a compliant e-commerce site looks like. For Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law that covers private businesses, that document doesn’t exist. Not because the Department of Justice never tried, and not because the question never came up. DOJ proposed a rule in 2010, worked on it for seven years, withdrew it in 2017, and has filled the space since with guidance that explicitly disclaims any legal force. That history is worth understanding on its own, because it’s the real reason website accessibility law has developed through individual lawsuits rather than a published checklist.
Quick answer: DOJ published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on web accessibility for Title II (state and local government) and Title III (public accommodations) on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43460). It withdrew the Title III portion on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60932), stating the ANPRM “had no force or effect of law” and that it was still “evaluating whether promulgating regulations…is necessary and appropriate.” In March 2022, DOJ issued a guidance document instead of a regulation — one that states plainly it has “no legally binding effect, and …no force or effect of law,” and that names WCAG as “helpful” without specifying a required version or level. Title II eventually got a binding rule anyway, in April 2024, requiring WCAG 2.1 AA — but that rule applies only to state and local governments, not private e-commerce businesses. For Title III, the regulatory gap that opened in 2017 is still open.
This article is educational content about U.S. federal regulatory history, not legal advice. It describes what DOJ’s own public filings say; it does not assess whether any specific website is ADA compliant or carries legal risk. Consult qualified counsel for that determination.
The 2010 proposal DOJ never finished
On July 26, 2010, DOJ published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on web accessibility (75 FR 43460) — the first formal step toward a new regulation, used to solicit public comment before drafting actual rule text — covering “the accessibility of Web information and services of state and local government entities” under Title II “and public accommodations” under Title III. DOJ later split the effort into two separate rulemaking dockets: one for state and local governments (RIN 1190-AA65), and one specifically for private-sector public accommodations under Title III (RIN 1190-AA61). DOJ proceeded with the Title II track first, publishing a follow-up Supplemental ANPRM for state and local governments in May 2016. The Title III docket — the one that would have governed e-commerce sites — never got that far. By DOJ’s own account in its later withdrawal notice: “The Department has not published any rulemaking document regarding title III Web accessibility since the 2010 ANPRM.”
The 2017 withdrawal, in DOJ’s own words
On December 26, 2017, DOJ formally withdrew the Title III web-accessibility ANPRM, along with three other unrelated pending ANPRMs, in a Federal Register notice of withdrawal (82 FR 60932). The stated reason wasn’t that web accessibility had been resolved or settled — DOJ said the opposite, that it was “evaluating whether promulgating regulations about the accessibility of Web information and services is necessary and appropriate,” and that the evaluation “will be informed by additional review of data and further analysis.” The notice is explicit about what withdrawal means and doesn’t mean: the ANPRM “had no force or effect of law, and no party should rely upon [it] as presenting the Department of Justice’s position on these issues,” but withdrawing it also “does not preclude the Department from issuing other documents on these subjects in the future or commit the Department to any future course of action.” In plain terms: DOJ closed the one proposal that was on the table, without replacing it, and without ruling out doing so later.
The 2022 guidance filled the silence, not the gap
In March 2022, DOJ published “Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA” — the document most often cited today as DOJ’s position on the subject. It recommends practices like sufficient color contrast, alt text, captioned video, keyboard navigability, and accessible forms, and it points to “existing technical standards” — WCAG and the Section 508 Standards — as “helpful guidance.” What it doesn’t do is name a required WCAG version or conformance level, or create an enforceable standard. The guidance says so about itself: “Guidance documents posted to this website are not intended to be a final agency action, have no legally binding effect, and have no force or effect of law.” It also states DOJ may rescind or modify it “in [its] complete discretion.” A business reading the 2022 guidance gets a description of good practice, not a regulatory bar to clear.
Title II got a rule. Title III didn’t.
The contrast sharpens when you look at what actually happened for the other half of DOJ’s 2010 proposal. In April 2024, DOJ finalized a binding rule under Title II — the ADA title that covers state and local governments, not private businesses — requiring web content and mobile apps to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with phased compliance deadlines (later extended) running into 2027 and 2028. That rule names a specific standard and a specific conformance level, the way the 2010 ANPRM once aimed to for Title III. It just never applies to an e-commerce storefront, because Title II only binds government entities. Our comparison of ADA, Section 508, and WCAG covers that 2024 rule and its actual scope in more detail. For Title III specifically, nothing equivalent has followed the 2017 withdrawal.
What the regulatory gap means in practice
None of this means private e-commerce sites face no legal exposure under the ADA — Title III’s general nondiscrimination requirement for “places of public accommodation” still exists and still gets litigated; what’s missing is a regulation spelling out exactly how that requirement applies to a website. That’s precisely why whether a website even counts as a “place of public accommodation” has become a question courts have had to answer themselves, with different federal circuits reaching different conclusions, rather than a question a regulation already settled. Absent a binding Title III rule, WCAG 2.1 AA has become the practical, widely referenced benchmark anyway — through DOJ’s own 2022 guidance, through settlement patterns in demand letters and lawsuits, and through Title II’s 2024 rule naming it for a closely related context. It’s a de facto standard built from guidance and case-by-case litigation, not a requirement any single regulation imposes on a private business. The absence of a formal rule doesn’t mean the absence of risk, and it doesn’t make “no rule, no requirement” a safe reading of where things actually stand.
FAQ
Does the lack of a Title III regulation mean my e-commerce site has no ADA obligation? No. Title III’s general prohibition on disability discrimination by places of public accommodation still applies and still gets enforced through litigation — what’s absent is a regulation defining exactly how that applies to a website, not the underlying law itself. Whether your specific site carries exposure is a legal question for an attorney, not something this article can answer.
Could DOJ still issue a Title III web-accessibility regulation in the future? Yes — the 2017 withdrawal notice says explicitly that withdrawing the 2010 ANPRM “does not preclude the Department from issuing other documents on these subjects in the future.” Nothing in the record forecloses a future rulemaking; one simply hasn’t happened as of this writing.
Is the 2022 DOJ guidance the same thing as a legal compliance standard? No. The guidance states directly that it has “no legally binding effect” and “no force or effect of law.” It’s useful as a description of DOJ’s current thinking and the practices it considers good ones, but it isn’t a standard a business formally complies with the way it would a finalized regulation.
Why does Title II have a rule but Title III doesn’t, if DOJ proposed both in 2010? DOJ split the single 2010 ANPRM into two dockets and finished the Title II one first. The Title III docket was withdrawn in 2017 without a final rule, and DOJ’s public record doesn’t give a reason the two tracks diverged beyond the general regulatory-reform rationale in the withdrawal notice itself.
Get a WCAG 2.1 AA audit regardless of what regulation does or doesn’t exist
Whether or not DOJ ever finalizes a Title III rule, WCAG 2.1 AA is the standard this site’s audits are built around — the same benchmark already referenced in DOJ’s own guidance and in the Title II rule covering government sites. Quietramp’s $890 one-time audit is a human-verified pass against that standard, not a legal opinion about your specific regulatory exposure. See a real sample report or check pricing — $890 one-time, $99/month for ongoing re-checks after fixes ship.
This is provided for general educational purposes about U.S. federal regulatory history and does not constitute legal advice. The regulatory and guidance documents described here reflect their status as of this article’s publish date and may change; only a qualified attorney can assess your specific legal exposure under the ADA or any other law.
This article was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by a person for accuracy before publication.