Since 28 June 2025, online shops in the consumer business have had to be accessible (BFSG). For more than a year, individual complaints and first warning letters shaped the picture. In 2026 this changes fundamentally: the German states' market surveillance body has entered its active control phase (MLBF), and from the third quarter of 2026 automated scan tools are added that check thousands of online shops for obvious barriers in a very short time (DOSIGNY). Anyone who has relied on hope so far should rethink - because a scanner needs only seconds for the violations that are easiest to prove. This article explains how the checks work, which defects surface first and how to make your shop scan-proof with targeted accessibility optimization.
From Grace Period to Control Phase: What Is New in 2026
The German Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) transposes the European Accessibility Directive into German law and applies to online shops, apps and many digital services in the consumer business. The decisive technical benchmark is the harmonized standard EN 301 549, which at its core adopts the WCAG 2.1 success criteria at conformance level AA (EN 301 549). In concrete terms this means, among other things, a minimum contrast of 4.5:1 for normal text, full keyboard operability, visible focus indicators and meaningful alternative texts (WCAG 2.1). For violations the law provides for fines of up to 100,000 euros (BFSG).
Since early 2026 the German states' market surveillance body for the accessibility of products and services has been in its active control phase (MLBF). At the end of January 2026 it adopted its surveillance strategies for products and services and published its website with information for companies (MLBF). Checks run along two paths: reactively via incoming complaints and actively via systematic, often automated samples (MLBF). In addition, the European Commission is urging Germany to implement the directive consistently, which further increases the pressure on the supervisory bodies (European Commission).
The decisive difference from the preceding months is scale. Purely complaint-driven supervision is inevitably slow and reaches only individual shops. Automated scan tools reverse this ratio: they check many sites in parallel, detect machine-findable barriers within seconds and turn them into formal inspection reports (DOSIGNY). This shifts the realistic probability of being checked from a rare individual case to broad, routine control.
Market surveillance does not rely only on complaints from affected people. It also carries out samples on its own initiative - and that is exactly where automated tools come in (MLBF). For shop operators this means: a specific complaint is no longer required for a site to come into focus. A routine batch scan can be the trigger too.
How Automated Accessibility Scans Work
An automated scanner loads a page, builds the document model in memory and compares it rule by rule against machine-testable success criteria. It does not read the meaning of a text but its technical structure: do images have an alternative text? Do form fields have a programmatic label? Does the text reach the required contrast? Such questions can be answered objectively and within seconds. That is precisely why these checks scale to the masses - and precisely why they are uncomfortably predictable for operators.
The limit of the technology matters: a scanner reliably detects what is machine-provable but does not replace human judgement. Whether an alternative text meaningfully conveys the image content or a focus order is logical is ultimately assessed by a person. For the first wave of market surveillance this is not a drawback but by design: the automatically findable violations are numerous, unambiguous and easy to document. A scanner typically notices the following points first:
- Missing alternative texts on images, graphics and image links - one of the most frequently logged barriers.
- Insufficient color contrast between text and background below 4.5:1 (WCAG 2.1).
- Unlabelled form fields where the programmatic link between label and input is missing.
- Missing language declaration of the document or a missing meaningful page title.
- Unstructured headings, for example skipped levels or a missing H1.
- No linked accessibility statement - probably the fastest and most unambiguous hit of all.
| Attribute | Complaint check | Automated scan |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Report by affected person | Routine sample |
| Reach | Single page | Thousands in parallel |
| Speed | Days to weeks | Seconds per page |
| Evidence | Individual | Formal inspection report |
The Missing Accessibility Statement: The Easiest Proof
Every affected shop must provide an accessibility statement that describes the state of accessibility, known limitations and a contact channel for reporting barriers. For a scanner the absence of this statement is the simplest conceivable find: it is enough to check whether a correspondingly marked-up, linked section exists. If it is not there, the violation is established - without any content assessment. Experience shows that a missing or incomplete statement is therefore one of the most frequently warned and most easily provable points (MLBF).
The second warning wave has reached a new quality: demands increasingly rely on formal inspection reports instead of blanket claims of defects (DOSIGNY). A carefully maintained accessibility statement is therefore not a fig leaf but solid evidence of your efforts - provided it reflects the actual state. How to avoid typical mistakes is shown in our article on the BFSG enforcement wave and how it is pursued.
An existing statement must be truthful. A built-in accessibility overlay that promises full conformance can achieve the opposite and even make warnings easier. Why these tools are legally risky is explained in the article on overlay widgets and their BFSG risk.
What Scanners Typically Find First
The machine-findable barriers are not evenly distributed - some defects appear in almost every check. A Cologne study of 1,000 company websites reached a sobering result in mid-2025: around three in four pages already fail the basic requirements (mindshape). By far the most common single defect is insufficient color contrast (mindshape). A broader field test also shows that about 80 percent of online shops are difficult or impossible to use for roughly one third of people in Germany (Aktion Mensch/Pfennigparade).
Color contrast
Text below 4.5:1 contrast is the most common automatically detected defect (mindshape). Testable in milliseconds, often fixed with a few color values.
Alternative texts
Images without an alt attribute are a standard hit. How to scale this with AI-generated alt text is covered in a dedicated article.
Form labels
Without a programmatic link between label and field, the search box, login and checkout remain unlabelled for screen readers.
Keyboard operation
Menus, filters and the cart must be reachable without a mouse. Non-focusable elements are logged in the test.
Visible focus
The current operating point needs a clear marker. A focus outline removed via CSS is noticed immediately.
Structure and language
A missing language declaration, no page title or a broken heading hierarchy are clearly machine-provable.
These six areas cover the bulk of what a scanner reports in the first round. The good news: they are also the points that can be worked through in a structured way with manageable effort. A systematic test - manual as well as automated - reliably uncovers them before the authority does. How such an accessibility audit for your shop works in detail we have described separately.
The fine range typically extends from a few thousand euros for standard violations up to 100,000 euros in severe or repeated cases (Web Accessibility Checker). Added to this are possible warning costs from competitors and associations as well as the effort of a short-notice fix under time pressure. Those who act early replace these hard-to-calculate risks with plannable project costs.
Fines, Warnings and the Consequences for Operations
The legal consequences run along two separate channels. On one side stands market surveillance: it can identify defects, order remediation, impose fines and, in the extreme, require that a non-conforming service be withdrawn from the market (BFSG). On the other side are civil-law warnings from competitors or entitled associations, which rely on the unfair competitive advantage of a non-accessible site. Both paths can take effect independently of each other.
| Trigger | Possible consequence |
|---|---|
| Missing accessibility statement | Warning, order to remediate |
| Systematic WCAG violations | Fine up to 100,000 euros |
| Repetition or inaction | Higher fine, market withdrawal possible |
| Misleading promotional claim | Competition-law warning |
In practice, it is less the maximum fine that matters than the probability of being caught at all - and that rises markedly with automated scans. A site that meets the machine-testable criteria simply does not appear as a hit in batch scans. That is exactly the realistic goal for 2026: not theoretical perfection but demonstrable, documented conformance at the required level.
Becoming Scan-Proof in Five Steps
Accessibility cannot be retrofitted in an afternoon, but it follows a clear sequence. The following order deliberately prioritizes the machine-findable defects, because those are exactly what a batch scan notices first:
- Take stock: Run an automated test across the most important page types - home, category, product detail, cart and checkout - and sort the hits by frequency.
- Create the accessibility statement: Honestly document the actual state, name known limitations and set up a reporting channel.
- Fix the critical defects: Contrast, alternative texts and form labels first - they are numerous, unambiguous and solvable with reasonable effort.
- Secure operation: Establish full keyboard operability, visible focus and a clean heading structure, ideally anchored directly in front-end development.
- Monitor for regressions: Re-check after every deploy so that a new template or plugin does not bring a barrier back - accessibility is a permanent state, not a project end.
- The accessibility statement exists, is linked and reflects the real state
- All content-bearing images have meaningful alternative texts
- Text and controls reach at least 4.5:1 contrast
- Search box, login and checkout are fully keyboard operable
- Focus is visibly marked on every element
- An automated accessibility check runs after every deploy
Accessibility Pays Off in Reach and Revenue
The obligation is the occasion, but not the only reason. An accessible shop is more usable for everyone: clear contrasts, a clean structure and working keyboard operation improve overall user guidance. Many criteria also overlap with good technical SEO - meaningful alternative texts, correct headings and semantic markup help search engines as much as assistive technologies. Anyone who optimizes their product pages for AI answers and search anyway lays the groundwork with a clean structure at the same time.
The gain in reach should not be underestimated: when around one third of people can use a standard shop only in a limited way (Aktion Mensch/Pfennigparade), accessibility is also a question of the addressable market. The effort therefore flows not into pure compliance but into a site that brings more people to checkout. Other mandatory topics such as the new warranty and guarantee label on product pages can be handled cleanly in the same pass.
BFSG audit
Automated and manual testing of your most important page types against WCAG 2.1 AA, with a prioritized defect list.
Technical implementation
Fixing contrast, alternative texts, form labels, keyboard operation and focus - directly in your shop's template.
Accessibility statement
A solid, honest statement that reflects the actual state and provides a channel for reporting barriers.
Ongoing monitoring
Recurring checks after every deploy so that new features do not bring barriers back and the state stays documented.
Whether contrast, alternative texts or a missing statement: the automated scans of market surveillance make visible what a shop technically offers - and what it does not. The earlier you know and document your own state, the smaller the risk of being caught unprepared in a batch scan. Talk to our team to test your shop against the current criteria and fix the most urgent barriers first. If you want to place the technical basics and exemptions in context, you will find them in the overview of the BFSG for online shops.
This article draws on the German Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) and the harmonized standard EN 301 549 (technical benchmark, WCAG 2.1 AA), information from the German states' market surveillance body (MLBF) on active and reactive checks, a mindshape study of 1,000 company websites (mid-2025) on defect frequency, a field test by Aktion Mensch/Pfennigparade on the usability of online shops as well as analyses of fine ranges and warning practice (Web Accessibility Checker, DOSIGNY) and notes from the European Commission on implementation. The figures mentioned may change over time and serve as guidance; this article does not replace individual legal advice. As of August 2026.
The German states' market surveillance body has been in its active control phase since early 2026 (MLBF). The broad use of automated scan tools that check many shops in parallel is expected from the third quarter of 2026 (DOSIGNY). Since active samples without a specific complaint are also possible, shop operators should not wait for a trigger but proactively check their own state.
The missing or incomplete accessibility statement. A scanner only has to check whether a correspondingly marked-up, linked section exists - without any content assessment the violation is established. That is why it is, by experience, one of the most frequently warned points (MLBF). An honest, maintained statement is the simplest first step toward more certainty.
The BFSG provides for fines of up to 100,000 euros (BFSG). In practice the range typically extends from a few thousand euros for standard violations to the upper limit for severe or repeated cases (Web Accessibility Checker). Added to this are possible civil-law warning costs from competitors or associations.
They compare the technical structure of a page against machine-testable WCAG criteria: color contrast, alternative texts, form labels, language declaration, page title, heading structure and the presence of an accessibility statement. Whatever requires content assessment - such as the meaningfulness of an alternative text - is still checked by a person. For the mass of unambiguous violations, however, the automated test is sufficient.
The BFSG generally applies to digital services in the consumer business. There are narrowly defined exemptions, for example for certain microenterprises providing services. Whether an exemption applies depends on the individual case and should be examined carefully - we cover the details in our article on exemptions for microenterprises and B2B. Pure B2B offers without a consumer relationship are to be assessed differently from classic B2C shops.
We test your most important page types automatically and manually against WCAG 2.1 AA, prioritize the barriers found by frequency and fix the critical defects such as contrast, alternative texts and form labels first. We also create a solid accessibility statement and set up recurring checks after every deploy. This way accessibility can typically be organized as a permanent operational state rather than a one-off fix under time pressure.