{"id":8596,"date":"2026-08-04T22:30:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/?post_type=insight&#038;p=8596"},"modified":"2026-08-04T22:30:14","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:30:14","slug":"european-accessibility-act-first-year-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"insight","link":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/insights\/european-accessibility-act-first-year-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"A Year of the European Accessibility Act: Carrefour Under a Daily Penalty, German Warning Letters, Swedish Audits"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The obligations of the European Accessibility Act started applying on 28 June 2025. For the first eleven months the enforcement picture was mostly speculation, some of it sold by vendors with an overlay to license. It stopped being speculation on 4 June 2026, when a French court ordered one of Europe&#8217;s largest retailers to make its shopping site and app fully accessible within six months, under a coercive penalty running per day of delay.<\/p>\n<p>The decision is worth reading carefully, because the single most repeated sentence about it in trade coverage is wrong, and because the reasoning transfers directly to any online shop above the national turnover thresholds.<\/p>\n<h2>What the Caen court actually ordered<\/h2>\n<p>The claimants were two disability organisations, apiDV and Droit Pluriel, supported by the lawyers&#8217; collective Interet a Agir. The sequence, from their own published statements, runs like this.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Date<\/th>\n<th>Step<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>28 June 2025<\/td>\n<td>The accessibility obligation for online commerce starts applying in France<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>7 July 2025<\/td>\n<td>Formal notices sent to four retailers: Auchan, Carrefour, E. Leclerc and Picard Surgeles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>November 2025<\/td>\n<td>All four summoned in urgent interim proceedings, announced on 12 November<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>5 May 2026<\/td>\n<td>Lille dismisses the claim against Auchan&#8217;s e-commerce subsidiary on turnover grounds; appeal lodged in Douai<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4 June 2026<\/td>\n<td>Caen orders Carrefour France to make carrefour.fr and the Carrefour app fully accessible within six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The claimants&#8217; <a href=\"https:\/\/droitpluriel.fr\/decision-du-tribunal-judiciaire-de-caen-apidv-et-droit-pluriel-c-carrefour-une-decision-de-justice-majeure-pour-laccessibilite-numerique\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">account of the Caen decision<\/a> records that Carrefour never disputed being subject to the obligation. Its defence was that it already satisfied 71% of the criteria of the French RGAA reference framework. The judge&#8217;s answer is the line the case will be remembered for: the e-commerce site concerned cannot be only somewhat accessible, it has to be accessible entirely. Accessibility is treated as an obligation of result. If a company chooses to measure itself against the RGAA, then 100% of the applicable criteria have to be met, in the same way that 100% of the steps of a staircase have to be covered by a ramp.<\/p>\n<p>The daily amount is reported as EUR 500 per day of delay by the specialist disability press, in particular <a href=\"https:\/\/www.faire-face.fr\/2026\/06\/11\/pour-le-tribunal-judiciaire-de-caen-laccessibilite-des-sites-de-e-commerce-doit-etre-totale\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Faire Face&#8217;s report on the ruling<\/a>. The claimants&#8217; own statement confirms the six-month deadline and the existence of the penalty without naming the figure, so treat the number as well-sourced journalism rather than as text you have read in the judgment.<\/p>\n<h2>An astreinte is not a fine, and the difference matters commercially<\/h2>\n<p>Almost every English-language summary called this a fine. It is not one. An astreinte is a coercive measure in French civil procedure: an amount that accrues per day until the ordered act is performed. Three consequences follow, and they change how the risk should be modelled.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>It is not payable if you comply.<\/strong> Comply inside the six months and nothing accrues. A regulatory fine punishes what already happened; an astreinte prices delay going forward.<\/li>\n<li><strong>It compounds with time, not with severity.<\/strong> The number of accessibility defects does not change the daily rate. Only the calendar does.<\/li>\n<li><strong>It is set by a court on the claimants&#8217; application, not by a supervisory authority.<\/strong> There is no regulator to negotiate a remediation plan with. That route was closed when the case was filed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For a large retailer EUR 500 a day is not the deterrent. The deterrent is the judgment itself, the six-month clock, and the fact that a court has now stated that partial conformity is not conformity.<\/p>\n<h2>Why Lille went the other way<\/h2>\n<p>The Auchan dismissal on 5 May 2026 is not a contradiction of Caen so much as a demonstration that France has two overlapping legal bases with different thresholds: a decree made under the 2005 disability act, which bites above roughly EUR 250 million of average annual turnover, and the consumer code provision transposing the Accessibility Act, which bites above EUR 2 million for online sellers. Lille decided the case on the first basis, and Auchan&#8217;s e-commerce subsidiary sat below that threshold.<\/p>\n<p>The claimants have taken that to the Cour d&#8217;appel de Douai. Until it rules, the practical lesson for a mid-sized merchant is uncomfortable: the two-million threshold is the one that catches ordinary online shops, and the Caen reasoning about total conformity attaches to it.<\/p>\n<h2>Germany runs two enforcement tracks at once<\/h2>\n<p>The German framing that circulated through 2026 was that Germany has no regulator and enforcement happens through competitor warning letters. That is half right and the missing half matters.<\/p>\n<p>There is a regulator. The <a href=\"https:\/\/mlbf-barrierefrei.de\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Marktueberwachungsstelle der Laender fuer die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen<\/a>, a joint body of all sixteen federal states based in Magdeburg, began operating in late September 2025 and runs administrative market surveillance under the Barrierefreiheitsstaerkungsgesetz.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, from early 2026, German businesses started receiving Abmahnungen, the civil warning letters that are a standard feature of German competition practice. These assert that an accessibility breach is also an unfair competition breach. According to German legal commentary summarising the position, no court has yet decided whether the accessibility act qualifies as a market conduct rule under section 3a of the Act Against Unfair Competition, which is the precondition for that whole theory to work. First rulings were expected in the second half of 2026. Until they arrive, a German Abmahnung on accessibility grounds is a claim with an unsettled legal basis, which is precisely why the letters are being sent in volume and precisely why paying one without advice is a poor reflex.<\/p>\n<h2>Sweden audits by sampling<\/h2>\n<p>Sweden gave supervision to PTS, the post and telecom authority. Its approach is planned sampling rather than complaint-driven pursuit: it opened supervision of e-commerce accessibility in 2025 and <a href=\"https:\/\/pts.se\/nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden\/pts-granskar-ytterligare-11-e-handelstjansters-tillganglighet\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">added eleven more cases in March 2026<\/a>, bringing the total to twenty-eight, with further tranches announced in stages.<\/p>\n<p>A figure of around 124 complaints received by PTS, split roughly 110 about services and 14 about products, has circulated widely. We could not retrieve it from a PTS page directly, so treat it as reported rather than confirmed. The structural point does not depend on it: PTS states that incoming complaints feed the selection of supervision targets, which means a single well-documented complaint can put a named merchant into a published audit list.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Country<\/th>\n<th>Who acts<\/th>\n<th>What triggers it<\/th>\n<th>What you face first<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>France<\/td>\n<td>Civil courts on application by associations<\/td>\n<td>Formal notice, then interim proceedings<\/td>\n<td>An injunction with a daily coercive penalty<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Germany<\/td>\n<td>Market surveillance body, plus competitors and associations<\/td>\n<td>Sampling, complaints, and commercial warning letters<\/td>\n<td>An administrative procedure or a cease-and-desist demand with costs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Sweden<\/td>\n<td>PTS<\/td>\n<td>Planned sampling informed by complaints<\/td>\n<td>A named supervision case and a remediation deadline<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2>Which standard you are actually measured against<\/h2>\n<p>The technical benchmark for the Accessibility Act in Europe is EN 301 549. The version currently in force, v3.2.1 from March 2021, incorporates WCAG 2.1 level AA by reference. A draft v4.1.0 went out for public comment in November 2025, and a v4.1.1 aligned to WCAG 2.2 level AA is expected to be cited in the Official Journal, with October 2026 the date most commonly quoted by accessibility vendors. As at the beginning of August 2026 that has not happened, so v3.2.1 and WCAG 2.1 AA remain the operative target. Plan for 2.2, but do not tell a board that 2.2 is already the legal test.<\/p>\n<p>WCAG 3.0 is further away than its version number suggests. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/TR\/wcag-3.0\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">W3C Working Draft published on 3 March 2026<\/a> states plainly that several years of work remain. It is not a compliance target for anyone planning a 2026 or 2027 budget.<\/p>\n<h2>What to do with all of this<\/h2>\n<p>The Caen reasoning is the part that generalises. A conformity score is a project management artefact, not a defence. If your audit says 71%, the correct reading is that the remaining 29% is the entire legal exposure, and the score itself is evidence that you knew.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Establish which national threshold catches you.<\/strong> Turnover tests and exemptions differ by member state, and the <a href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/social\/main.jsp?catId=1202\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Commission&#8217;s page on the European Accessibility Act<\/a> is the starting point before national law.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Treat the accessibility statement as a document a claimant will read.<\/strong> It is often the first place a percentage appears in writing.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fix the purchase path before the marketing pages.<\/strong> Every case above concerns buying, not browsing.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Test with assistive technology, not only with automated tools.<\/strong> Automated scanners catch a minority of the criteria, and the ones they miss are the ones that stop a checkout.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Our guide to <a href=\"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/insights\/website-accessibility-legal-requirements-business-value\/\">accessibility requirements and their business value<\/a> covers the baseline, and the companion piece on <a href=\"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/insights\/cognitive-accessibility-website-neurodivergent-users\/\">cognitive accessibility<\/a> covers the criteria that automated tools never reach. If you sell into a market with its own layered rules, the interaction gets complicated quickly: our walkthrough of <a href=\"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/insights\/bulgarian-online-store-2026-euro-language-fiscal-rules\/\">what a Bulgarian online store has to satisfy in 2026<\/a> is a worked example of several regimes landing on one product page at once.<\/p>\n<p>For a shop, this is a checkout problem before it is a legal one, which is how we approach it when we build <a href=\"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/services\/online-stores\/\">online stores<\/a>, and how the rebuild ran on our <a href=\"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/cases\/24konsultant\/\">24konsultant project<\/a>. Content-led sites carry the same duty with a different failure surface, and that is a <a href=\"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/services\/corporate-websites\/\">corporate website<\/a> question.<\/p>\n<p>This article summarises published court statements, regulator pages and standards documents as at August 2026. It is not legal advice, and national transposition of the Accessibility Act differs enough that the answer for your company depends on where you sell.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What the Caen ruling against Carrefour actually decided, why an astreinte is not a fine, how Germany and Sweden enforce differently, and where the EN 301 549 and WCAG timelines stand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8548,"template":"","insight_category":[196],"insight_tag":[190,168,160],"class_list":["post-8596","insight","type-insight","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","insight_category-regulation","insight_tag-accessibility","insight_tag-business-process","insight_tag-ui-ux-design"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight\/8596","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/insight"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"insight_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight_category?post=8596"},{"taxonomy":"insight_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dextora.agency\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight_tag?post=8596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}