Accessibility statement in the shop: the mandatory entries

Since 28 June 2025, a shop covered by the German Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) owes more than accessible technology: it owes a document about it. Search for the term accessibility statement and you will find templates written for public bodies - and those are the wrong ones. For services in electronic commerce the document is called information on accessibility, it is set out in Annex 3 BFSG, and it calls for different content than the public-sector statement. This article takes the document and the feedback route apart: which four elements belong in it, where the page has to sit, which two routes are open to consumers, and where a public-sector template makes promises nobody asked for. How this is implemented in day-to-day operations is what our accessibility work under the BFSG covers.

Two documents that are easily confused

The confusion has an obvious cause: both documents describe accessibility and both are called a statement in everyday language. In law they are two papers from two different legal acts. The accessibility statement belongs to public bodies: it rests on Directive (EU) 2016/2102, and its German implementation sits in section 12b BGG and in the BITV 2.0 regulation. The information on accessibility belongs to service providers under the Accessibility Strengthening Act and sits in Annex 3 BFSG. The German market surveillance authority for accessibility, which is responsible for shops, states this explicitly on its page for businesses (Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder).

The information on accessibility is not to be equated with the accessibility statement.

Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder für die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen, information for businesses (working translation of the German original)

The difference is not academic, because the public-sector version contains duties that do not apply to a shop - and one entry that has no place in the shop document. Section 12b(4) BGG requires federal public bodies to respond to notifications and enquiries submitted on the basis of the statement within one month at the latest (BGG). Section 7 BITV 2.0 additionally obliges federal authorities to list the contact details of the conciliation body in the statement (Schlichtungsstelle BGG). Copy such a template into a shop and you promise a processing deadline that the BFSG does not impose on service providers, and you name a body that is expressly not to be stated in the information under Annex 3 (Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit).

The four mandatory entries under Annex 3 BFSG

Section 14(1) no. 2 BFSG frames the duty as a condition for the offer itself: a service may only be offered if the information under Annex 3 no. 1 has been produced and made accessible to the general public in an accessible form (BFSG). The document is therefore not an add-on to accessibility but part of whether the offer is permitted at all. In practice that means a shop which has come a long way technically does not meet this part of the duty as long as the page is missing.

He has produced the information pursuant to Annex 3 no. 1 and has made this information accessible to the general public in an accessible form; the requirements of the statutory instrument to be issued under section 3(2) are decisive for making it accessible.

Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSG), section 14(1) no. 2 (working translation of the German original)

1. How the service meets the accessibility requirements. Annex 3 no. 1 sentence 1 calls for precisely this entry, either in the general terms and conditions or in another clearly perceptible way (BFSG).
2. How the service works. Section 12 no. 2 BFSGV calls for information on how the service functions and, where products are used to provide it, on their accessibility features and their interoperability with assistive technologies (BFSGV).
3. Which products offered for sale are accessible. Section 19 no. 1 BFSGV adds, for electronic commerce, information on the accessibility of the products offered for sale, insofar as the responsible economic operator provides it (BFSGV).
4. Which market surveillance authority is competent. This is the German addition compared with Annex V of the directive; the conciliation body expressly does not belong here (Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit).

The regulation accompanying the BFSG governs not only what the information says but also how it is provided. Section 12 no. 2 BFSGV sets out eight individual requirements for this, reaching from findability to the text format (BFSGV). This is where a page that is correct in substance can still fail: a PDF without a text layer, an image with the text burnt into it, a section the keyboard never reaches.

Where the page sits and how it is found

Annex 3 no. 1 sentence 1 names the location itself: the service provider states the details in its general terms and conditions or in another clearly perceptible way (BFSG). That leaves two routes open, and the second is the usual one - a dedicated page reachable from everywhere. The act prescribes neither an address nor a page title; it prescribes perceptibility.

In respect of its service within the meaning of section 1(3), the service provider states in its general terms and conditions or in another clearly perceptible way how the service meets the accessibility requirements of the statutory instrument to be issued under section 3(2).

Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSG), Annex 3 (to sections 14 and 28) no. 1 sentence 1 (working translation of the German original)

As an alternative to the terms and conditions, the Federal Agency for Accessibility recommends a link labelled Barrierefreiheit in the header or footer of the website, pointing to the page with the information on accessibility (Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit). That is a recommendation, not a legal duty - Annex 3 names only the terms and conditions or any other clearly perceptible way. In practice the recommendation is still the calmer route: a footer link sits on every page, survives a relaunch and can be changed in one place during content management system maintenance.

The page itself has to meet the requirements

The service provider must make the information accessible in an accessible form, in a clearly perceptible and easily findable way (Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit). That formula sums up the eight requirements of section 12 no. 2 BFSGV (BFSGV). For implementation this means: the page sits at a permanent address, it can be reached by keyboard, its text is text rather than an image, and where it also exists as a file, the same requirements apply to that file - what this looks like for invoices and data sheets is covered in the article on accessible documents.

<!-- Footer: the same reference on every page -->
<a href="/accessibility/">Accessibility</a>

<!-- /accessibility/ -->
<h1>Information on accessibility</h1>
<p>Last reviewed: DD.MM.YYYY</p>

<h2>How this shop meets the accessibility requirements</h2>
<h2>How the service works and which products are used</h2>
<h2>Accessibility of the products offered for sale</h2>
<h2>Competent market surveillance authority</h2>
<p>Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder für die Barrierefreiheit
   von Produkten und Dienstleistungen</p>

<h2>Feedback on accessibility</h2>
<p><a href="/contact/?topic=accessibility">Send feedback</a></p>

• Its own address: a permanent page instead of a paragraph that slips during the next update of the terms.
• A reference from every page: a link labelled Barrierefreiheit in the header or footer, as recommended by the Federal Agency for Accessibility (Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit).
• Language versions: a multilingual shop needs the page in every language it serves, plus clean markup of those versions, as described in the article on hreflang in international shop structures.
• Keep it findable: the page belongs in the sitemap and not behind a barrier.
• Text format: the entries as text, not as an image and not as a file without a text layer (BFSGV).
• Maintain the date: a review date at the foot of the page shows when it was last checked; the BFSG does not require it for shops.

The feedback route: what the law provides and what it does not

This is where the most common misunderstanding of the duty sits. The BFSG does not prescribe a feedback mechanism with a response deadline for service providers. The one-month period found in many templates comes from section 12b(4) BGG and applies to federal public bodies (BGG). Directive (EU) 2016/2102 itself names no month; Article 7(1) asks only for a response within a reasonable period. For a shop that leads to an uncomfortable sentence: a deadline promised in your own document is what you are measured against, even without a statutory duty.

What does exist are two routes open to consumers. The first leads to the market surveillance authority: section 32 BFSG gives consumers the right to file an application, and once it has been received the economic operator concerned must be given the opportunity to comment (BFSG). The shop therefore learns of the matter through the authority rather than from the customer - and the comment is the moment when well-kept documentation saves work.

The second route leads to conciliation. Section 34(1) BFSG allows consumers who claim that an economic operator is in breach of the act or the regulation, and that they therefore cannot use the service or can use it only to a limited extent, to file an application with the conciliation body under section 16(1) BGG (BFSG). The fact that this body need not be named in the information under Annex 3 (Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit) changes nothing.

Providing a feedback route still makes sense - and on one point the regulation does prescribe something. Where the shop offers support services, meaning a help desk, call centre, technical support, relay services or training services, these must provide the information on the accessibility of the service and its compatibility with assistive technologies using accessible means of communication (BFSGV). The duty only bites where such a service exists at all; it creates neither an obligation to set up a feedback route nor a response deadline. But a business that gives a telephone number as its only channel has given deaf customers no channel at all.

What happens when somebody complains

Market surveillance under the BFSG is built unusually: it runs through a single body that operates as a joint surveillance body for all 16 federal states (Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder). For operators that is a relief: there is exactly one body to name in the information under Annex 3.

Checks are triggered by cause. Where there is a suspicion or sufficient reason to assume non-conformity, the examination covers two aspects: formal non-conformity and non-conformity of the service itself. For services this includes checking whether the necessary information on accessibility is available and complete (Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder). That explains why this page plays such a large role in the procedure: it is visible from outside and can be checked in minutes.

For services, the examination includes whether the necessary information on accessibility under the BFSG is available and complete.

Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder für die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen, about us (working translation of the German original)

How often the other route is used can be put in figures. The conciliation body under the BGG received 436 applications for conciliation under section 16 BGG in 2025 (Schlichtungsstelle BGG), after 330 applications in 2024 (Schlichtungsstelle BGG). Applications relating to the Accessibility Strengthening Act accounted for four per cent of them (Schlichtungsstelle BGG). The absolute number is small, the direction unambiguous. It says nothing about proceedings before the market surveillance authority: that body has not published case figures so far.

For the duration there is at least one solid figure: 84 per cent of the conciliation proceedings concluded in 2025 were completed in under three months (Schlichtungsstelle BGG). The fine sits at the other end of the chain. Section 37 BFSG punishes administrative offences, depending on the offence, with a fine of up to one hundred thousand euros or up to ten thousand euros (BFSG). The missing document is therefore not a formality alongside the technology but a point in itself.

What market surveillance looks at

Annex 1 BFSG describes the sampling procedure for services. The pages carrying the information or the entries on accessibility under section 14(1) no. 2 in conjunction with Annex 3 are a fixed part of it (BFSG). They are therefore not found by chance but looked for.

Added to that are further pages and documents selected at random, amounting to at least 10 per cent of the defined sample (BFSG). The mandatory page will therefore be looked at in any case, and the rest of the shop is not safe merely because it looks inconspicuous. How automated such checks have become is described in the article on automated scans by authorities; how to build your own preliminary check is set out in the article on the BFSG audit.

• Is the page reachable without a login and does it answer with status code 200?
• Does the start page carry a reference to it that can be found without searching?
• Are all four elements of Annex 3 on it, including the competent market surveillance authority (BFSG)?
• Is the text there as text, so it can be copied and searched (BFSGV)?
• Does the page exist in every language version the shop serves?
• Has it been excluded from indexing by accident? Then neither the authority nor the customer will find it.

Exemptions and the standard behind them

Not every shop is covered. Section 3(3) BFSG exempts microenterprises that offer or provide services (BFSG). Under section 2 no. 17 BFSG a microenterprise is one that employs fewer than ten people and either has an annual turnover of at most 2 million euros or an annual balance sheet total of at most 2 million euros (BFSG). The harder condition is the headcount: exceed it and the duty applies. Where the boundaries run in individual cases is taken apart in the article on BFSG exemptions for microenterprises.

Behind the technical requirements sits the European standard EN 301 549. Its version V3.2.1 lists, in Annex A, Table A.1, a total of 137 requirements for websites that have to be met for conformity with the essential requirements of the EU web accessibility directive (BFIT-Bund). In September 2026 version V4.1.1 appeared, adopted on 24 August 2026 (ETSI); its annexes have been rebuilt, so the figure 137 cannot be carried over. Conflicting national standards are to be withdrawn by 31 May 2028 (ETSI). Which success criteria sit behind all this is placed in context by the article on the new WCAG 2.2 criteria. Incidentally, the regulation prescribes a fixed language level only for banking services, and there level B2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (BFSGV) - no level is prescribed for a shop's information page, which does not make plain language superfluous.

What the picture on the web looks like

The gap between duty and practice can be estimated roughly. In the evaluation of one million home pages from the Tranco ranking, 95.9 per cent of home pages showed automatically detectable WCAG 2 failures in February 2026 (WebAIM); on average there were 56.1 detected errors per page (WebAIM). Home pages in the shopping category came in at 71.0 errors, 26.6 per cent above that average (WebAIM), while home pages under the .de suffix came in at 46.3 errors, 17.5 per cent below it (WebAIM). The most frequent single finding was low contrast text on 83.9 per cent of home pages, up from 79.1 per cent the year before (WebAIM). The population belongs with the figure: only the home page of each site was checked, automatically, from the Tranco ranking of highly placed websites. A missing finding also does not mean a page is accessible.

How hard the documentation duty itself proves to be is shown by the area for which figures exist. In the special surveillance carried out by the federal monitoring body for accessible information technology, the share of public-sector websites carrying an accessibility statement rose from 36 per cent in the first reporting period to 48 per cent in 2024 (BFIT-Bund); of the statements found there, 13.5 per cent met all formal requirements (BFIT-Bund). These values come from a voluntary special surveillance exercise that goes beyond the EU minimum standards, is handled differently by the federal states and whose case count the summary report does not disclose; they can be transferred neither to the 7,239 websites checked regularly in the second reporting period (BFIT-Bund) nor to shops. As an order of magnitude they are still useful. And the group this is about is not small - at the end of 2025 a good 7.8 million people with a severe disability were living in Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt).

What to do now

In practice the order is usually the same: the document first, the rest afterwards. Not because the technology matters less, but because the document can stand within days, because it forms part of the market surveillance examination (Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder) and because writing it forces you to clarify your own position. Anyone who has to write down how the service meets the requirements notices which parts they do not yet know. The evidence produced along the way belongs in the same file as the paperwork on data processing agreements and vendor audits - in proceedings, both are pulled from the same folder.

• Take stock: does the page exist? Does it say how the service meets the requirements, how it works, which products are affected and which authority is competent (BFSG)?
• Check the location: a section in the terms or a dedicated page, plus the reference in the header or footer (BFSG).
• Check the form: findability, accessible form and text format under the eight requirements of section 12 no. 2 BFSGV (BFSGV).
• Set up the feedback route: a named role, an internal deadline, a log - without a public deadline promise.
• Clarify product data: take manufacturers' accessibility information into the product data flow (BFSGV).
• Set a date: include upcoming rebuilds so the page survives the relaunch - for the TYPO3 upgrade to 14 LTS as much as for a change of shop system.

In our projects this runs in three steps: we survey the state of accessibility in the shop, write the information under Annex 3 from that survey in a version that holds up against the eight requirements of section 12 no. 2 BFSGV (BFSGV), and anchor the feedback route where it is actually read in day-to-day operations. Where the current state is unclear, a shop check reaches a solid answer faster than an estimate; where the technology has to follow, that belongs in the same plan as the rest of the accessibility work. What comes out of it is not a file for the drawer but a page that customers can read and an authority can check.