A typical German bureaucratic farce: The Accessibility Strengthening Act – Between promises of inclusion and bureaucratic reality

32 letters, 0 insights: Is the BFSG a typical German bureaucratic monster?

With the enactment of the Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG), digital Germany is supposed to become more inclusive. What was celebrated as a long overdue step towards implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and European directives, however, is proving to be a legal and technical obstacle course in practice. The name of the law – a 32-letter monstrosity – seems almost symbolic of the hurdles it erects.

The goal is clear: online shops, services, and digital products should finally be fully accessible to the approximately eight million people with disabilities in Germany. However, six months after the deadline, one thing prevails in the business world: uncertainty. While large corporations have the resources for the transition, many medium-sized companies are left in the dark. Who is affected? Does a simple contact form already count as a digital service? And why are the first waves of cease-and-desist letters already threatening, while the state regulatory authority in Magdeburg only began its work months late?

A gap exists between the moral imperative of participation and the harsh reality of costs, unclear regulations, and technical complexity. Current figures are alarming: Over 90 percent of German websites still exhibit significant barriers. Is the Federal Participation Act (BFSG) therefore a "toothless tiger," an expensive bureaucratic monster, or the necessary starting point for a fairer digital world? The following analysis examines the tension between well-intentioned promises of inclusion, economic strain, and the typically German tendency to overcomplicate simple goals.

A wave of cease-and-desist letters is rolling in, business is booming: Up to €10,000 just for the check – The true cost of digital inclusion

On June 28, 2025, the Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) came into force in Germany. Even the name of this set of regulations—32 letters, five syllables in the word "accessibility" alone—embodies a certain irony. While the law aims to make digital services understandable and accessible to everyone, the very term itself presents a linguistic barrier. "Who comes up with such monstrous words?" a blogger rightly asked. The answer provides an initial clue to the ambivalence of this undertaking: On the one hand, the BFSG is the long-overdue implementation of international human rights obligations; on the other, it exemplifies that German thoroughness which transforms a necessary step into a complex regulatory framework with unclear contours.

The history of the law goes back a long way. As early as 2006, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which explicitly calls for equal access to information and communication – including digital technologies – in Article 9. Germany ratified this convention in 2009, but it took another 16 years before comprehensive legislation for the private sector was created with the Federal Disability Equality Act (BFSG). The immediate trigger was the European Accessibility Act, an EU directive from 2019 that obligated all member states to enact corresponding national laws by June 2025. The European Union pursued two main objectives: the harmonization of the internal market through uniform accessibility standards and the improvement of the participation of people with disabilities. For companies, standardization was even expected to reduce costs in the long term, as they would no longer have to comply with 27 different national sets of regulations.

Germany implemented this directive in July 2021 with the BFSG (Federal Law on the Protection of Personally Providers of Digital Accessibility), which became legally binding on June 28, 2025. This marked the first time that the private sector was obligated to ensure digital accessibility across the board. While previously only public bodies were required to provide accessibility under the Barrier-Free Information Technology Ordinance, companies in the business-to-consumer sector are now also held accountable. This represents a crucial paradigm shift: accessibility is no longer solely the responsibility of the state, but has become a corporate responsibility.

Suitable for:

• European Accessibility Act - The accessibility law (BFSG): warnings, fines and legal consequences

The unwanted jungle: Why even lawyers are puzzled about who is affected

The central weakness of the Accessibility Strengthening Act lies not in its intention, but in its implementation. The 36-page law defines obligations for manufacturers, retailers, and service providers – yet the specific requirements remain surprisingly vague. As one commentator aptly put it: it is unclear when accessibility is actually achieved under the law. Even more serious, however, is the lack of clarity regarding its scope. Millions of website operators in the European Union do not know whether they are affected by the law. This uncertainty stems from general and unclear formulations, particularly concerning the term "digital services.".

In theory, the system is simple: Companies with more than ten employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet total exceeding two million euros that offer digital services to end consumers are affected. Micro-enterprises below these thresholds are exempt for services – but not for products. A manufacturer of self-service terminals with nine employees therefore falls under the law, while a hair salon with eight employees and its own booking website does not. Purely business-to-business companies are also not affected, as long as it is clearly evident that the offer is aimed exclusively at businesses.

In practice, this creates a regulatory jungle. What about a website that is primarily informative but also includes a contact form? Does this form already count as a digital service? What about clubs and associations that operate an online merchandise shop? The answers to these questions are not clear, and this is precisely where the problem lies. While a clear regulation—for example, focusing exclusively on contracts concluded without manual involvement from both parties—would have provided clarity, tens of thousands of companies now have to obtain expensive legal opinions in cases of doubt. A survey of 85 companies showed that 33 percent are unsure whether their services are even affected. Among respondents who are familiar with the law, 31 percent stated that they feel poorly informed or not informed at all. This is not a sign of indifference, but rather an expression of the fact that even after intensive engagement with the topic, uncertainty remains.

The German implementation also contains some peculiarities not derived from the EU directive. For example, it explicitly covers the so-called quasi-manufacturer – someone who markets a product under their own name without having produced it themselves. This provision is not found in the European Accessibility Act. Interestingly, the German version is less strict in another respect: the exceptions for disproportionate burdens apply independently of each other, whereas in the EU directive they must be fulfilled cumulatively. This back and forth between tightening and relaxing the rules shows that different interests vied for influence during the legislative process – resulting in a compromise that no one is entirely happy with.

The cost of good intentions: What accessibility costs and who pays for it

Implementing digital accessibility doesn't come cheap. An initial, rough analysis of a simple website costs between €600 and €1,200. For a complete test with a detailed report, simple websites should expect to pay between €2,500 and €5,000, while more complex projects like online shops can cost between €5,000 and €10,000. These figures refer exclusively to the analysis; the actual implementation of the identified measures is additional. Depending on the content management system and existing code, further significant costs may arise.

For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), this represents a significant investment. A survey of companies revealed that 25 percent see a lack of knowledge as the biggest obstacle to implementation, followed by additional time expenditure at 15 percent and limited resources at 13 percent. Remarkably, however, 27 percent do not anticipate any particular difficulties – which either suggests a realistic assessment or an underestimation of the requirements. Even more alarming is the figure of 41 percent who have not yet undertaken any preparatory steps, despite the law already having come into force. Only 34 percent are currently actively implementing it.

This reluctance is understandable given the unclear framework. Many companies are waiting to see if they will even be affected. Others are speculating that enforcement will initially be lax. This speculation is not entirely unfounded: While the responsible state market surveillance authority for accessibility was included in the Accessibility Strengthening Act, it only began its work on September 26, 2025 – three months after the law came into effect. The authority, based in Magdeburg, is initially supposed to have around 70 employees and monitor compliance nationwide. How it is supposed to monitor the estimated 65,000 online shops in Germany alone with this staffing level remains unclear. It is being described as a serious false start.

Inspections are carried out both randomly and based on complaints. Consumers and competitors can report violations, whereupon the authority first requests compliance. Failure to comply can result in fines of up to €100,000. In serious cases, a sales ban can even be imposed. This tiered sanction mechanism is quite appropriate – provided it is actually applied. However, experience with other regulations shows that there is often a significant gap between the theoretical possibility of sanctions and their practical enforcement.

Alongside official monitoring, a wave of civil cease-and-desist letters is looming. The first such letters have been sent out since August 2025, primarily by the Hamburg law firm CLAIM Rechtsanwalts on behalf of an individual. The pattern is familiar from previous waves of such letters: a blanket assertion of a lack of accessibility without specifying concrete defects, a demand for a flat fee of around €600, a value in dispute of €10,000, and no evidence of a competitive relationship. Legal experts consider many of these cease-and-desist letters legally contestable but warn against paying prematurely. The business model is well-known: mass letters are sent out with minimal effort, in the hope that some recipients will pay out of fear or ignorance. Such practices undermine the legitimate aim of the law and discredit accessibility.

The promise of added value: Between idealism and the calculator

The crucial question is: Does the Accessibility Strengthening Act actually create added value, or is it just another regulatory monstrosity with more costs than benefits? The answer is nuanced and depends heavily on the perspective from which one views the law.

From a human rights perspective, the necessity of this law is undeniable. Around eight million people with disabilities live in Germany. Their employment rate, at 51.4 percent, is significantly lower than the overall population's 79.3 percent. In 2024, their unemployment rate, at almost twelve percent, was twice the general rate. People with disabilities encounter digital barriers daily that exclude them from participation. A 2009 estimate put the untapped purchasing power of this group at 9.6 billion euros annually – money that goes unspent because barriers prevent consumption. This figure is likely considerably higher now. Studies also show that people with disabilities use online shops even more frequently than people without disabilities, provided they are accessible. The economic potential is therefore real.

For companies that take accessibility seriously, there are definite advantages. An international study found that 38 percent of companies that have implemented accessible features report higher sales or improved conversion rates. Another 28 percent have been able to achieve significant cost savings, for example, by reducing customer support inquiries or avoiding legal disputes. Accessible websites also improve search engine optimization (SEO) because they are easier to crawl and index, leading to more organic traffic. A full 27 percent of the surveyed companies see accessibility as an opportunity to improve the usability of their products, and 20 percent expect to gain a competitive edge in public tenders.

However, these positive effects are countered by a sobering reality: 29 percent of the companies surveyed see no opportunities whatsoever from the BFSG (Federal Act on the Promotion of Vocational Training). That's almost a third – a considerable number of skeptics. The reasons for this are manifold. Many SMEs simply lack the resources to undertake comprehensive changes and fear that the costs will outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, the long-term added value often only becomes apparent after years, while the initial investments are immediate. An improved brand image or increased customer loyalty cannot be measured in the next quarter's monetary figures – a problem in a business culture fixated on short-term results.

The current data on accessibility in Germany is sobering. An analysis by the German Society for Accessibility from March 2025 revealed that 93 percent of German websites have significant barriers. Fewer than 0.5 percent have the legally required accessibility statement. A study of over 40,000 pages showed that 96.3 percent of all homepages were faulty and 83.5 percent were not accessible. Even when an accessibility statement was present, it was usually inadequate. A test of 60 important websites for the Handelsblatt newspaper in June 2025 found only three companies – Mercedes, DocMorris, and Deutsche Telekom – that largely met the requirements. These figures demonstrate two things: First, there is a massive need for action. Second, the figure of 35 percent of inaccessible websites cited in the AccessiWay advertisement analyzed at the beginning is a drastic understatement of the actual situation.

Our EU and Germany expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

The German dilemma: Is the BFSG really typically German?

Europe's plan, Germany's problem: Why we're making it more complicated than necessary once again

The question of whether the Accessibility Strengthening Act is a typical German bureaucratic monster cannot be answered categorically. It's both yes and no – depending on which aspect you consider.

Several indicators support this thesis. The name of the law itself is a linguistic monstrosity that hardly anyone can pronounce correctly. The structure of the regulations is complex: The Federal Disability Equality Act (BFSG) is specified in more detail by the Ordinance on Strengthening the Accessibility of People with Disabilities, for whose enactment no fewer than five federal ministries had to act in concert. This coordination between the Ministries of Labor, Finance, Health, Economic Affairs and Energy, and Transport not only delayed the specification of the requirements but also carries the risk that economic interests will be prioritized over inclusion concerns. The fragmentation of responsibilities continues: The newly created market surveillance office in Magdeburg is responsible for monitoring the private sector, while state authorities are responsible for public bodies. This dual structure creates redundant work and makes uniform enforcement difficult.

In addition, there are extensive documentation and retention obligations. Companies must not only design their products and services to be accessible, but also carry out a conformity assessment, issue an EU declaration of conformity, affix the CE marking, and retain relevant documents for five years. If they invoke an exemption due to disproportionate burden, they must also document and retain this assessment. Critics also point out that approximately 40 percent of federal regulations, representing over 50 percent of the bureaucratic costs for companies, stem from the implementation of EU directives – with Germany often exceeding the minimum requirements, a phenomenon known as gold-plating.

However, there are compelling arguments against the notion that this is a purely German problem. The German Federal Disability Equality Act (BFSG) implements EU Directive 2019/882, which all 27 member states were required to adopt. The accessibility requirement is therefore not a uniquely German approach, but rather a Europe-wide harmonization measure. Furthermore, the directive is based on the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an international obligation ratified by over 180 countries worldwide. Germany ratified this convention in 2009 and was thus obligated to take action. Interestingly, the German implementation is less stringent in some areas than the EU requirement, for example, regarding exceptions for disproportionate burdens.

The German government has also committed itself to implementing EU law verbatim in the future, without bureaucratic over-implementation. The program for reducing bureaucracy and improving legislation aims to avoid gold-plating. However, this declaration of intent is more recent than the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) Act (BFSG) and its impact will only become apparent in future legislation. Furthermore, it is questionable whether exact one-to-one implementation is even possible, as directives deliberately leave room for interpretation, which then has to be filled in at the national level.

The real problem lies deeper: It's not the existence of accessibility regulations that is perceived as bureaucratic, but their unclear and difficult-to-implement design. A law whose requirements are difficult to understand even for experts, whose scope remains unclear to millions of affected individuals, and whose enforcement was nonexistent for months – that is the problem. Had the legislature precisely defined from the outset which services are affected, specified clear technical standards, and established a functioning monitoring structure, acceptance would have been significantly higher. Instead, a set of rules was created where even well-intentioned observers must acknowledge a vast gap between potential and implementation.

Who is really affected? The social geography of impact

The distribution of burdens and benefits resulting from the Accessibility Strengthening Act is unequal. On the one hand, there are those directly affected by the obligations: companies with more than ten employees and an annual turnover exceeding two million euros that offer digital services to end consumers. This threshold was deliberately chosen to avoid overburdening micro-enterprises. In reality, however, this means that a medium-sized company with eleven employees and 2.1 million euros in turnover is fully obligated, while a company with nine employees and 1.9 million euros in turnover does not have to make any digital adjustments – even if both have identical online shops.

The e-commerce sector is particularly hard hit. Online shops, booking portals, banking applications, and digital payment services all fall under the law. The estimated 65,000 online shops in Germany must make their offerings accessible – from product presentation and shopping cart to order completion. This is no trivial task, as many of these shops are based on outdated systems or custom programming, making subsequent adjustments costly. Smaller retailers, especially those just above the micro-enterprise threshold, find themselves in a bind: they have neither the resources of large corporations nor the exemptions afforded to very small businesses.

Service providers working for B2C companies, such as web design agencies, software developers, and content management system providers, are also indirectly affected. A new business area is emerging for them – accessibility as a service. However, they are under pressure to adapt their own products while simultaneously helping their clients with implementation. The enormous demand for consulting services resulting from the unclear wording of the law is a Segenfor consulting firms, but an economic inefficiency for the economy as a whole.

The real beneficiaries should be people with disabilities – eight million people in Germany who rely on accessible digital services. But whether they actually benefit depends crucially on the quality of implementation. A study showed that 80.1 percent of respondents encounter digital barriers, and 27.2 percent experience them daily. For this group, accessibility is not a nice-to-have, but essential for social participation. In addition, there are older people – a growing population group often with impaired vision or fine motor skills – as well as people with temporary limitations, such as after surgery, and those with limited German language skills. Overall, far more people than just those officially registered as disabled will benefit.

Nevertheless, a bitter aftertaste remains. Disability organizations, such as the advocacy group "Selbstbestimmt Leben" (Self-Determined Living), criticized the German Disability Equality Act (BFSG) for falling short of expectations. They called it a long overdue step, but not a major breakthrough. They particularly criticized the long transition periods – up to 15 years for some products like self-service terminals – the numerous exceptions, and above all, the lack of effective market monitoring. A spokesperson aptly described a law without monitoring as being like an elevator without power: theoretically helpful, practically ineffective. The organizations' demands are clear: a swift expansion of the law's scope to all areas of life, analogous to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; functioning market monitoring with the involvement of civil society; effective class action lawsuits; and integration with the Disability Equality Act and the General Equal Treatment Act.

Criticism also comes from the social welfare organization VdK, which describes the 15-year transition period for self-service terminals as completely incomprehensible. This effectively prevents people with disabilities from independently using ATMs or ticket machines until 2040. Such deadlines undermine the promise of inclusion and fuel suspicions that economic interests ultimately outweigh human rights.

The fine line between necessity and overextension

The Accessibility Strengthening Act exemplifies a dilemma of modern regulation. It pursues an undeniably legitimate and necessary goal: the equal participation of all people in digital life. This goal is not only ethically imperative but also legally binding under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and under European law through the European Accessibility Act. Furthermore, accessibility opens up economic opportunities, as studies on increased sales and cost savings demonstrate. The untapped purchasing power potential of people with disabilities is real and substantial.

Nevertheless, the specific design of the law is problematic in many respects. The imprecise wording leads to legal uncertainty and forces tens of thousands of companies to commission expensive expert opinions simply to determine whether they are affected. The complex regulatory structure, involving five ministries, and the fragmentation of responsibilities between the federal and state governments, as well as between public and private sector authorities, create unnecessary inefficiencies. The months-long delay in establishing the market surveillance agency is a false start with a clear message: apparently, enforcement is secondary to symbolic legislation.

The wave of cease-and-desist letters that began just a few weeks after the law came into effect also reveals the downside: dubious actors are exploiting legal uncertainty to make money with sweeping accusations. This not only harms the companies involved but also discredits the cause of accessibility. Political clarification or legislation addressing the misuse of cease-and-desist letters is urgently needed.

Is the German Federal Disability Equality Act (BFSG) therefore a typical German bureaucratic monster? The answer is: partly, partly. The fundamental obligation to ensure accessibility is Europe-wide and based on international human rights standards. Germany's fulfillment of this obligation is not a uniquely national approach, but rather the norm in Europe. However, the way in which this obligation has been implemented – with unclear wording, an overly complex structure, and inadequate enforcement – ​​certainly bears German characteristics. The result is a set of regulations that, in its formal thoroughness, goes beyond what is necessary, without being convincing in its practical effectiveness.

Ultimately, the law primarily affects those operating in the middle: medium-sized companies that barely exceed the thresholds, lack large legal departments, and yet are fully obligated. Very small businesses are exempt, while very large ones have the resources for implementation. For the middle class of businesses, the accessibility requirement will be a Herculean task. People with disabilities are supposed to benefit – but whether they actually do will only become clear in the coming years, once implementation is widespread and market surveillance is truly effective.

The added value of the law is potentially considerable: A society in which digital services are accessible to everyone is more inclusive, fairer, and more economically efficient. However, potential and reality are two different things. The current data – 93 percent of websites have significant barriers, less than 0.5 percent have an accessibility statement – ​​shows that there is still a long way to go before this potential is realized. The Accessibility Strengthening Act is a start, nothing more. Whether it was a good start will be revealed in practice over the next few years. There is a great risk that a necessary instrument for inclusion will become yet another example of well-intentioned but poorly executed regulation – a set of rules that generates more frustration than progress and whose actual purpose gets lost in the thicket of bureaucracy.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month