Municipalities often look to vendors like CivicPlus and overlay providers for a quick path to digital accessibility compliance. However, legal trends and industry guidance show that automated overlays correlate with more lawsuits, not fewer, and that CivicPlus's approach leaves many compliance gaps.
Explains why overlay users face significant legal risk, examines case law and enforcement actions against overlay vendors, and evaluates CivicPlus's reliance on AudioEye and its own accessibility practices.
Discusses why courts and regulators expect ongoing, good-faith progress, including manual testing, issue logging and regular progress reports, and why a structured, continuous improvement program is essential for compliance.
These screenshots were captured by Justin Salas, a core member of our team who is blind/low-vision and navigates the web using zoom and a screen reader. Every image below is a live, real government website powered by CivicPlus.
Every broken layout above has an AudioEye accessibility widget running on it. The overlays did not prevent the failures — in many cases, they caused them. The legal data and case law below explain why this pattern repeats across thousands of sites.
Modern accessibility lawsuits show a clear pattern: websites that rely on automated overlays or widgets are frequently targeted. Several independent reports reveal how widespread this problem has become:
EcomBack's 2023 ADA lawsuit report counted 929 lawsuits against websites that installed accessibility widgets, representing 24.50% of all ADA website suits. UsableNet's year-end analysis confirmed that more than 900 businesses using overlays were sued in 2023, a 62% increase from the previous year.
In the first half of 2024, there were 334 lawsuits against websites using widgets; EcomBack's mid-year report noted that reliance on overlays dropped slightly, yet hundreds of suits persisted. In May 2025, UsableNet reported that 119 defendants were sued while using third-party accessibility widgets.
The class-action complaint against accessiBe, filed on behalf of Tribeca Skin Center, explains that accessiBe advertises that its widget will lower the likelihood of ADA lawsuits, but in reality, “businesses that use AccessiBe’s products are more likely to be the targets of lawsuits” because the widget signals that a business has used a “flawed shortcut”.
Analysis by TestParty (based on Court Listener data) shows over 800 businesses using overlay widgets (AccessiBe, UserWay, EqualWeb and others) were sued in 2023-2024, comprising more than 25% of all digital accessibility lawsuits. Courts repeatedly rejected defendants’ arguments that installing an overlay demonstrates compliance, and settlements often required the removal of the widget.
These figures indicate that overlays do not reduce legal exposure; instead they correlate with a higher likelihood of being sued. Businesses that rely on CivicPlus's automated partners (such as AudioEye) face the same risks because the underlying problems remain unaddressed.
In Murphy v. Eyebobs, a plaintiff sued the eyewear retailer Eyebobs for web accessibility violations while the site used the accessiBe overlay. The case highlighted that the overlay “actually made it more difficult” for screen-reader users, and Eyebobs ultimately removed the widget. This case demonstrates that overlays can create barriers rather than remove them.
A class-action complaint filed in June 2024 alleges that accessiBe misled customers about its overlay. Key allegations include:
This case underscores that overlay vendors' claims about automated compliance and legal protection are not substantiated and may constitute deceptive advertising.
In January 2025, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Decision and Order against AccessiBe. The FTC found that the company misrepresented its overlay's ability to make websites WCAG compliant and ordered AccessiBe to pay a $1 million fine. The Order prohibits AccessiBe from claiming that its plug-in can make websites compliant and requires truthful advertising. The FTC action confirms that overlay vendors' marketing is deceptive and that their products do not guarantee compliance.
The Tribeca complaint also notes that overlay vendors advertise that they will provide legal support, but in practice, they provide no substantial assistance and use the opportunity to sell additional services. Businesses using overlays remain responsible for remediation and legal defence, often at high cost.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) emphasises that accessibility evaluation is not fully automatable. Its “Evaluating Web Accessibility” overview states that no single tool can determine whether a site meets accessibility standards; human expertise is required. The WCAG Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) likewise notes that tools can assist by identifying samples, but most checks require manual evaluation. Overlay products that rely solely on automated scripts do not comply with this guidance. Without manual testing and remediation, compliance cannot be verified.
CivicPlus frequently points to its Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) for “Municipal Websites Central” as evidence of compliance. However, ACRs are self-reported evaluations of a vendor's product, not certifications of customer websites. The Section 508 guidance explains that an ACR helps buyers assess ICT products but does not certify compliance. Accessibility experts stress that completing a VPAT/ACR “doesn't certify that a product or service is conformant” and that many buyers require independent audits because self-assessments are biased.
CivicPlus's ACR is for its platform, not for each municipal website. A screenshot from the CivicPlus help centre shows that the ACR covers the “Municipal Websites Central solution”. Individual municipalities remain responsible for ensuring their content and customizations meet WCAG/ADA standards. Thus, an ACR does not protect a municipality from litigation.
What the ACR covers
The CivicPlus platform only - not individual municipal websites, custom content, or third-party integrations.
Self-assessed bias
Section 508 guidance notes self-assessments may be biased; independent audits are recommended for objective results.
CivicPlus markets a partnership with AudioEye to provide automated web accessibility remediation. The company claims that, with AudioEye, governments can “automatically” fix accessibility issues and display an AudioEye “Trusted Certification” badge. However, AudioEye is itself an overlay vendor that uses JavaScript to modify pages after they load. The same limitations and legal risks apply:
Overlays modify the Document Object Model after the page has loaded, whereas screen readers construct the accessibility tree from the original HTML. As TestParty explains, screen readers don't see the fixes because they parse the page before the overlay runs.
Many problems, such as missing form labels, keyboard traps, or improper semantic structure, require source-code changes that overlays cannot provide.
AudioEye's "Trusted Certification" is a marketing badge, not an official certification recognized by W3C or any government. Vendor certifications have no legal standing and can mislead municipalities into thinking their websites are compliant.
Data indicate that hundreds of businesses using overlays have been sued, with overlay users representing a substantial portion of ADA lawsuits. CivicPlus's reliance on AudioEye's overlay technology exposes municipalities to similar risks.
Overlays promise quick compliance and legal protection. The Tribeca class action and the FTC order demonstrate that these promises are deceptive. Municipalities may believe they are compliant when significant barriers remain.
The W3C and accessibility experts insist that manual testing and code remediation are essential. Overlays cannot replace this work; they may even interfere with assistive technologies.
CivicPlus's ACR covers only its platform and is a vendor-generated report, not a certification. Municipalities still must audit and remediate their own content.
CivicPlus promotes AudioEye, which has faced litigation and sells an overlay solution subject to the same criticisms. AudioEye's own marketing claims have been scrutinised, and its "certification" lacks legal recognition.
Overlay-based solutions, like those promoted by CivicPlus through its partnership with AudioEye, offer a tempting shortcut to accessibility compliance. However, the evidence shows that these quick fixes do not provide legal protection or true accessibility.
Hundreds of overlay customers have faced lawsuits.
Courts and the FTC have rejected claims that overlays ensure compliance.
Experts emphasize the need for manual evaluation and remediation.
CivicPlus's ACR covers only its platform and does not extend to municipal websites. For municipalities seeking to protect themselves from litigation and to provide equitable access to all residents, investing in comprehensive accessibility audits, manual testing, and source-code remediation rather than relying on automated overlays, is the prudent course.
Courts and settlements make clear that accessibility compliance is not a one-time task but an ongoing process. Documentation of good-faith efforts, such as monthly or quarterly progress reports, manual audits, and issue logging, demonstrates commitment and can reduce legal exposure. This section summarizes the rationale for continuous improvement and highlights legal authorities supporting this approach.
Experts in the Tribeca Skin Center class-action complaint emphasize that websites must be assessed using both automated and manual testing, followed by remediation of the underlying code. The complaint argues that overlay products are misleading because they claim to achieve compliance without code changes and often interfere with assistive technologies. Similarly, the W3C's guidance notes that no automated tool can fully evaluate accessibility and that knowledgeable human review is required.
“Overlay solutions do not suffice to achieve Accessibility.” - LightHouse for the Blind & Visually Impaired v. ADP Settlement Agreement
In the LightHouse for the Blind & Visually Impaired v. ADP settlement, ADP agreed to engage a web accessibility expert, develop procedures for manual testing, fix barriers before releasing updates, and address accessibility related bugs. The settlement explicitly states that overlay solutions “do not suffice to achieve Accessibility”. This framework requires ADP to document improvements over time and report on progress.
When businesses rely on overlays, lawsuits such as Murphy v. Eyebobs show that courts are unconvinced by claims of automatic compliance; Eyebobs removed the overlay and invested in manual remediation after being sued. The Tribeca complaint explains that AccessiBe's promised “legal support” was essentially an audit report and an upsell, leaving customers responsible for legal defense and remediation. To demonstrate good faith, organizations need an accessibility plan with clear timelines, assign responsibility for fixing issues, and publish regular progress reports. Documented progress, such as monthly dashboards showing issues identified, resolved, and pending, helps demonstrate that the organization is actively remediating its site, rather than simply relying on a widget.
Municipalities should establish an accessibility governance program that includes:
Conduct a comprehensive audit using automated and manual methods to identify barriers across templates, content, documents, and third-party integrations.
Prioritize issues based on severity and develop a timeline for code-level fixes. Include tasks for content creators (e.g., adding alt text and headings).
Maintain monthly or quarterly reports that track the number of issues identified, resolved, and outstanding. Share these reports internally and, where appropriate, publicly to demonstrate transparency and commitment.
Involve people with disabilities in testing to ensure fixes work as intended. Train staff on WCAG requirements and create internal guidelines.
Engage third-party auditors outside of the vendor's approved network for objective assessments. CivicPlus's refusal to accept outside scans underscores the importance of independent review.
By following these steps, municipalities can demonstrate to courts and regulators that they are addressing accessibility systematically and continuously, rather than relying on automated overlays.
Protect your municipality with comprehensive audits, manual testing, code-level remediation, and ongoing progress reporting - no overlays, no shortcuts.
Important Note: This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal counsel specific to your situation, please consult a qualified attorney. A3S provides accessibility consulting, auditing, and remediation services.
