Most U.S. businesses and government entities are covered by some web accessibility statute. The real exemptions are narrow: religious organizations and private clubs under ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12187), specific archived/preexisting content under Title II (28 C.F.R. § 35.201), and the EAA microenterprise carve-out (fewer than 10 persons AND turnover OR annual balance-sheet total not exceeding €2M, for covered services). There is no general “small business” ADA exemption for websites.
Use the Exemption Checker
Answer 4–6 yes/no questions and we'll show you which statute(s) apply, what the deadline is, and what the technical standard is.
28 C.F.R. § 35.201 web/mobile exceptions
42 U.S.C. § 12187 + court-developed limits
Non-recipients only
Microenterprise carve-out
Non-federal entities
These two terms get thrown around as if they were exemptions. They are not. An exemption has a defined statutory scope: a Title III exemption does not settle other laws, and the EAA microenterprise provision concerns covered services. Undue burden and fundamental alteration are case-by-case legal defenses — an entity that is otherwise fully covered can argue that one specific action (not accessibility in general) shouldn't be required, and even then it must still provide access some other way.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (Title II) and the comparable Title III framework, an entity may argue that a specific accessibility action would impose significant difficulty or expense relative to its overall financial and administrative resources — not the budget of one department or project. The 2024 Title II web rule preserves this defense for WCAG 2.1 AA conformance but requires a written, documented finding to invoke it.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7), an entity may decline a specific modification that would change the essential nature of its program or service — not just its logistics. The leading case is PGA Tour v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that letting a golfer use a cart did not fundamentally alter professional golf because walking was not essential to the competition. In the digital context this defense almost never succeeds: making a site keyboard-operable or adding alt text changes how content is delivered, not what the content is.
Neither defense is self-executing. Both require: (1) a written determination made by the head of the entity or a senior official — not a line employee or outside contractor; (2) documented reasoning tied to the specific action, not accessibility in general; and (3) continued alternative access — if one action is excused, the entity must still provide the underlying service through some other means to the maximum extent possible.
A verbal claim that something is “too expensive” will not survive a complaint, compliance review, or lawsuit. At minimum, keep a dated file containing:
In practice, courts treat standard web accessibility measures — keyboard operability, alt text, color contrast, accessible forms — as a routine cost of doing business, so successful claims are rare and reserved for genuinely extreme, fact-specific situations. A defense that was never documented in writing before a complaint was filed is far less likely to succeed after one.
I have fewer than 15 employees, so I am exempt from the ADA.
Truth: The 15-employee threshold applies to ADA Title I (employment). Title III public-accommodation rules apply regardless of headcount.
My website is just informational, so I am exempt.
Truth: Title III applies to any place of public accommodation. If your business is a public accommodation, your informational website is covered.
I am a nonprofit, so I am exempt.
Truth: Nonprofits are not categorically exempt from the ADA. Only religious organizations and private clubs are statutorily exempt under Title III.
The DOJ extended the deadline, so I have until 2028.
Truth: Only ADA Title II (state/local government) was extended. Private businesses, HHS-funded entities, and EU sellers all face active deadlines today.