FTC Accessibility Overlay Order Explained

The FTC accessibility overlay order is a 2025 enforcement action about advertising claims, not a ban on a type of software. In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced a complaint and proposed order against accessiBe Inc. and accessiBe Ltd. In April 2025, the Commission approved a final consent order, requiring a $1 million payment and barring certain claims about automated products and WCAG, unless the company had evidence to support them.

This is general information, not legal advice. If you have received a demand letter or been sued, talk to a qualified attorney.

Key takeaways

• January 3, 2025: complaint and proposed order announced, with a public comment period to follow.
• April 22, 2025: final consent order approved, by a 3-0 Commission vote.
• The final order bars claims that an automated product can make any website meet WCAG, or keep it meeting WCAG over time, without supporting evidence.
• The final order also bars presenting paid or connected reviews as independent opinions.
• The order does not, by itself, fix or test a site, or decide whether a different product works.

What an overlay is

An overlay is a script added to a website. It loads in the visitor's browser and tries to adjust the page after it loads, often with a toolbar that changes text size or contrast. The script changes what the browser shows during that visit. It does not edit the site's own source code, so the original markup stays as it was underneath.

That distinction matters. A missing label, a broken heading order, or a keyboard trap in the source does not disappear because a script ran on top of it. The Overlay Fact Sheet puts the point plainly: overlays are not an effective means of ensuring accessibility, and automated repair of text alternatives, field labels, error handling, focus control, and keyboard access is not reliable. Conformance means meeting all applicable success criteria, with no content violating them.

What happened in January 2025

On January 3, 2025, the FTC announced a complaint and a proposed order. The product at issue was accessWidget, a plugin sold by accessiBe. The FTC alleged that the company had misrepresented the ability of its AI powered tool to make any website meet WCAG, and that those claims were false, misleading, or unsubstantiated.

The complaint, as summarised by Seyfarth, alleged that in a number of instances the product failed to make basic components meet WCAG and accessible to people with disabilities. The examples named were menus, headings, tables, images, recordings, and more. Read that list as a test list for a real task.

The January announcement also covered reviews. The FTC alleged that the company deceptively formatted third party articles and reviews to appear as if they were independent opinions, and failed to disclose its material connections to the reviewers. If a review does not say who paid for it or what connection the writer has to the seller, treat it as marketing until you have a second, independent source.

What the final order said in April 2025

On April 22, 2025, the FTC announced that it had approved a final consent order against accessiBe Inc. and accessiBe Ltd., by a 3-0 vote. Seyfarth's summary of the Decision and Order, dated April 21, 2025, lists the central terms.

• January 3, 2025: complaint and proposed order announced, with a public comment period to follow.
• April 22, 2025: final consent order approved, 3-0, with a $1 million payment and the claim limits below.
• 20 years from the order: the order stays in effect, with annual reports to the FTC during that period, as summarised by Seyfarth.

The final order bars the company from representing that its automated products can make any website meet WCAG, or ensure continued WCAG conformance over time, unless it has evidence to support such claims. That evidence clause is the part to remember: a broad claim about an outcome needs a basis that holds up when someone checks it.

The order also bars misrepresenting that statements in reviews, blog posts, or articles about its automated products are independent opinions by impartial users or organizations, and bars misrepresenting material facts about its products. A seller cannot dress up its own marketing as an outside verdict.

What the order did not do

The order did not outlaw overlays, and it did not rule that every script based tool fails in every case. It addressed the marketing claims and disclosure practices in this case, for this company, on the facts the FTC set out. A different product with different claims, different evidence, and clear disclosure would be judged on its own record. The order also did not fix any site: a barrier in the markup is still in the markup until someone changes the markup and retests it. Nor did it settle the wider legal question for every site owner, which depends on the law that applies, the facts of that site, and advice from a qualified attorney for a real dispute.

How to read a vendor claim after this order

Use these four checks before you sign, and keep the notes with the date.

1. Ask what changes in the source code. If nothing changes, ask what happens when the script is turned off, and who will fix the markup if a barrier remains.
2. Ask for the evidence behind an outcome claim: which pages, which standard and level, which date, and which manual checks ran alongside any automated scan.
3. Test the task yourself. Use only a keyboard to complete a purchase, a booking, or a contact form, then try the same task with a screen reader if you can.
4. Check the review for a disclosure of payment or a business connection. If it reads like an independent verdict but links only to the seller, give it less weight.

If you hire help, put the scope in writing: which pages are in scope, what will be changed in code, what needs owner approval, and when the work will be retested. For a fuller version of that habit, see the client contract article. Keep a dated log of what you checked, what you fixed, and when you retested. For a simple log format, see the remediation log article.

Common mistakes

• Treating a $1 million order against one company as proof that every tool in a category fails, or that every tool in a category is safe.
• Accepting a review at face value when it does not disclose payment or a connection to the seller.
• Judging a tool only by a score that moves after the script loads, without checking the source code and the keyboard path.
• Assuming a toolbar setting replaces a fix in the markup for labels, headings, focus order, and form errors.
• Deleting a script and stopping there, without fixing the barriers underneath it.

How Axeazy helps with this exact issue

Axeazy takes the code route the order points toward, without promising an outcome the order warns against. It scans a site for WCAG 2.2 AA problems using axe-core, then fixes the underlying code instead of painting a script over the page. For a site with its own GitHub repository, fixes arrive as a real pull request with a visible code diff for review and merge. For other sites, the scan gives computed fix values and a guided checklist to apply by hand. Read the honest scope on the capabilities page, and read how the scan works.

Every scan and fix is recorded with a date and time, so you can show what was checked and changed, and when. For the wider legal picture, start with the state by state overview and the demand letter guide on our blog.

Be clear about the limit. Axeazy does not scan content behind logins or on third party hosted embeds the scanner cannot reach, so a widget hosted elsewhere may need its own check.

Want a quick read on your own site? Run Axeazy's free 60 second scan . It needs no signup.

Last checked: October 28, 2026.

FAQ

Did the FTC ban accessibility overlays in 2025?

No. The FTC approved a final consent order in April 2025 that required a $1 million payment and barred certain marketing and disclosure claims for the company in that case. It did not ban overlays as a category.

What claim did the FTC say needed evidence?

The FTC alleged that claims that an automated product could make any website meet WCAG were false, misleading, or unsubstantiated. The final order bars such claims, and claims about continued conformance over time, without evidence to support them.

Why did reviews matter in this case?

The FTC alleged that third party articles and reviews were formatted to look like independent opinions, without disclosing material connections to the company. A reader who trusts a review as independent will weigh it differently from paid marketing.

What should I do if my site already uses a script based tool?

Check the source code and test the main tasks with a keyboard and, where possible, a screen reader. Keep a dated log of the barriers, the code changes, and the retest date. If a barrier sits in the markup, fix the markup rather than adding another layer on top of it.

Sources

• FTC, 2025 Press Releases, January 2025 index, checked October 28, 2026
• Seyfarth Shaw, FTC Orders accessiBe to Pay $1M for Misleading Claims, checked October 28, 2026
• Overlay Fact Sheet, checked October 28, 2026