AccessiBe Won't Protect You: 456 Lawsuits, a $1M FTC Fine, and the Data Behind Overlay Failures

In the first half of 2025, 456 ADA website accessibility lawsuits — 22.6% of all filings — targeted websites that had accessibility widgets or overlays installed. In 2024, 258 of those lawsuits specifically involved websites running accessiBe's accessWidget, making it the most frequently cited overlay in litigation.

Then, in January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission fined accessiBe $1 million for deceiving businesses into believing its product could make any website WCAG compliant.

This article examines the data, the FTC case, and specific lawsuits to explain why installing accessiBe doesn't protect you from litigation — and may increase your risk.

The FTC's Case Against AccessiBe

On January 3, 2025, the FTC announced a complaint and proposed order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million. The Commission approved the order as final on April 22, 2025, by a unanimous 5-0 vote. (FTC Press Release)

What AccessiBe Claimed

AccessiBe marketed accessWidget as a product that could make any website WCAG compliant within 48 hours by adding a single line of JavaScript. Their marketing stated the tool provided "full WCAG & ADA compliance from day one, and every single day thereafter."

What the FTC Found

The FTC's 27-page complaint documented specific failures:

• AccessWidget did not make all user websites WCAG-compliant. The claims were "false, misleading, or unsubstantiated."
• Websites using the overlay still contained barriers: missing or inaccurate alt-text, missing focus indicators, keyboard traps, incorrect heading levels, and inaccessible menus, buttons, and tables.
• AccessiBe deceptively formatted third-party articles and reviews to appear as independent opinions. In one documented instance, accessiBe paid $1,900 for a blog post review and approved it before publication, while presenting it as an independent assessment.

The Order's Terms

The FTC order:

1. Prohibits accessiBe from representing that its automated products can make any website WCAG-compliant unless it has evidence to support the claim
2. Requires disclosure of material connections between accessiBe and endorsers
3. Imposes a $1 million fine, which may be used for consumer refunds
4. Remains in effect for 20 years, during which accessiBe must file annual compliance reports

Who Filed the Complaint

The individual who prompted the FTC investigation was Haben Girma, the first deafblind graduate of Harvard Law School and a White House Champion of Change under President Obama. Girma gave permission to be named publicly in connection with the complaint. (Source: Law Office of Lainey Feingold)

AccessiBe's Response

AccessiBe stated: "We disagree with the FTC's claims and characterizations, which we believe were largely based on flawed testing methodologies." They claimed the findings relied on "outdated information from the period between November 2019 and November 2022" and called the settlement "a strategic choice to avoid a lengthy legal process."

The Revenue Context

The $1 million fine is worth contextualizing. According to GetLatka, accessiBe's 2024 revenue was $51.3 million, up from $27.7 million in 2023. The fine represents approximately 1.9% of annual revenue. AccessiBe was also named to the Inc. 5000 list in 2025 as one of America's fastest-growing private companies. Critics argue the financial incentive to continue problematic marketing practices remains substantial.

The Lawsuit Data

Our analysis of CourtListener's RECAP archive found 452 federal court documents referencing "accessiBe" or "accessibility overlay" filed in 2025. Cross-referencing with EcomBack's report data:

In H1 2025, monthly filings against sites with accessibility widgets averaged 85-132 cases per month, with no downward trend despite the FTC action:

Source: UsableNet 2025 Midyear Report

Case Study: Eyebobs — AccessiBe Installed, Still Sued, Still Settled

Eyebobs, an eyewear company, was sued under the ADA despite having accessiBe's accessWidget installed on its website. The complaint alleged that the website remained inaccessible to screen reader users despite the overlay.

What happened: The plaintiff, a blind individual, attempted to use the Eyebobs website and encountered accessibility barriers that accessWidget failed to resolve. The case was filed in federal court.

The outcome: The case settled. Eyebobs was required to pay a monetary settlement and make its website actually accessible. Having the overlay did not prevent the lawsuit, did not prevent the settlement payment, and did not constitute a defense.

The lesson: An overlay is not a remediation. It's a JavaScript layer that attempts to modify the front-end presentation. It does not fix underlying HTML, ARIA, or structural issues in the source code. (Source: Accessibility.Works)

Case Study: Tribeca Skin Center — AccessiBe Sued by Its Own Customer

In June 2024, Tribeca Skin Center, a cosmetic dermatology practice in New York, filed a class action lawsuit against accessiBe itself in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that accessiBe's overlay widget put businesses at higher risk for lawsuits because the tool interfered with assistive technologies relied upon by people with disabilities.

This case is notable because it flips the typical dynamic: instead of a disabled plaintiff suing a business, a business customer is suing the overlay vendor for misrepresentation.

Case Study: Jones v. Exit 9 Brooklyn (2025)

On CourtListener, we found Jones v. Exit 9 Brooklyn, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., Case 1:25-cv-08989, filed October 30, 2025). The court documents include:

• Document 7: "Exhibit AccessiBe Accessibility Statement for Exit 9"
• Document 14: "Exhibit accessiBe Reports" (86 pages)

Despite having accessiBe installed and generating 86 pages of accessibility reports, Exit 9 Brooklyn was sued and the case proceeded through the court system. The presence of accessiBe was documented as evidence — not as a defense.

Why Overlays Don't Work: The Technical Reality

No automated tool can detect more than approximately 30-40% of WCAG issues (Source: EDF/IAAP Joint Statement). The remaining issues require manual testing. Overlays cannot fix:

• Source code structure. An overlay cannot restructure heading hierarchies, fix semantic HTML, or repair broken ARIA implementations in the underlying code.
• Content problems. AI-generated alt text routinely produces descriptions like "brown bread on white ceramic plate" for what is actually a product photo of a filet mignon dinner — a real example cited in the FTC complaint.
• Keyboard traps. If the underlying JavaScript creates focus traps, an overlay layer on top cannot intercept and redirect keyboard focus.
• Dynamic content. Single-page applications, JavaScript-driven content loading, and modal dialogs require accessible source code. An overlay cannot retroactively add ARIA live regions or manage focus in dynamically rendered content.
• Assistive technology conflicts. AccessiBe's products have been documented to interfere with screen readers, sometimes making websites harder to navigate than they would be without the overlay. One blind user stated: "I know with 100% certainty, any site which has deployed an overlay in the past year and a half has been less useable for both my wife and me — both blind." (Source: NBC News)

The Expert Consensus

The accessibility community has been unequivocal:

• Over 600 accessibility professionals have signed the Overlay Fact Sheet, a community-driven statement opposing overlay products.
• The European Disability Forum and the International Association of Accessibility Professionals issued a joint statement in May 2023: "Overlays do not make the website accessible or compliant with European accessibility legislation."
• The National Federation of the Blind has publicly opposed overlays and was involved in the FTC complaint process through advocate Haben Girma.

For a detailed analysis of the other major overlay vendor, see UserWay's track record in court.

The Paradox: Overlays Increase Legal Risk

Installing an overlay creates an ironic legal exposure. By deploying the widget, a business signals awareness of its accessibility obligations. If the site remains non-compliant despite the overlay — which the data shows is the norm — plaintiffs can argue the business knew about the problem and chose a cheap shortcut over genuine remediation.

As one accessibility attorney summarized: widgets are not compliance — they're evidence of awareness without action.

What To Do Instead: Non-Overlay ADA Compliance

The alternative to overlays isn't a $50,000 consulting project. It's fixing your actual source code.

1. Remove the overlay. It's not helping and may be hurting.
2. Audit your website against WCAG 2.1 AA using a combination of automated scanning and manual screen reader testing. Start with a free Woffy scan to see your current violations.
3. Fix the source code. Remediate HTML, CSS, ARIA, and JavaScript at the code level. Woffy does this automatically for WordPress and Shopify — editing your actual markup instead of layering JavaScript on top.
4. Test with real assistive technology. JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver — not just automated checkers.
5. Establish ongoing monitoring. Accessibility isn't a one-time fix. Code changes, content updates, and new features can introduce new barriers.

Sources: FTC Press Release, FTC Case Page, EcomBack 2025 Mid-Year Report, UsableNet Midyear Report, Law Office of Lainey Feingold, GetLatka, NBC News, CourtListener RECAP Archive, Overlay Fact Sheet