EqualSitesThe short version: an accessibility statement is a public page describing how accessible your website is, what you're doing about the gaps, and how users can reach you when something doesn't work. Under the European Accessibility Act publishing accessibility information is an expectation; in the US it's become standard practice and a signal of good faith. But there's a catch most site owners miss: a statement that overclaims is worse than no statement at all.
Why a copy-pasted statement can hurt you
Search for "accessibility statement template" and you'll find thousands of sites all declaring the same thing: "This website is fully conformant with WCAG 2.1 AA." Almost none of them are — full conformance is rare even among sites that work hard at it. Now imagine that sentence read aloud in a dispute, next to a scan report showing 60 violations. Your good-faith document just became evidence that you publish claims you don't check.
A statement is a claim. Every claim in it should trace back to something you actually measured.
The components of a credible statement
1. Commitment and scope. Which site(s) the statement covers and your commitment to accessibility, in a sentence or two. No mission-statement poetry required.
2. The standard you measure against. Name it: WCAG 2.1 level AA (the benchmark under both EN 301 549 in the EU and US practice).
3. An honest conformance status. The vocabulary that matters: fully conformant (rare), partially conformant (the honest answer for nearly everyone — some content doesn't yet meet the standard), or non-conformant. If you're doing the work, "partially conformant" is not an admission of failure; it's the credible position.
4. Known limitations. The specific areas you know need work — e.g., "some older blog images lack text descriptions; we are remediating them." Naming known issues is what makes the rest of the statement believable.
5. What you're doing about it. The measures: regular automated checks, fixes applied and verified, manual reviews. Dates matter — "last reviewed July 2026" beats "we care deeply."
6. A feedback channel that works. An email address or form where users can report barriers — and someone who actually responds. Under the EAA this is expected; in the US, a user who can reach you is a user who doesn't need a lawyer to get your attention.
7. Preparation date and method. When the statement was prepared or updated, and on what basis (self-assessment with automated + manual checks is legitimate — say so).
What never to write
- "This site is fully compliant" — unless you can prove it page by page, today.
- "We guarantee accessibility for all users" — nobody can.
- Claims delegated to a widget — "this site is made accessible by [overlay vendor]" ties your legal position to a product category the FTC has already fined for overclaiming.
- Anything you won't update — a statement dated three years ago reads as abandonment.
The maintenance problem — and the honest shortcut
The hard part isn't writing a statement once; it's that your site changes every week, and a statement that drifts from reality slowly turns from shield into liability. This is why EqualSites generates statements instead of templating them: every claim comes from your actual scan data and manual-review progress, the conformance status is always "partially conformant" with your real known limitations listed, and it republishes to your site with a shortcode as your results change. The statement stays true because it's wired to the truth.
Honesty note: this guide is general information, not legal advice. A statement doesn't make your site accessible — it documents where you honestly are and what you're doing about it. The work behind the statement is the point.