Free tool · runs in your browser

Accessibility statement generator

Fill in what you actually know and get a statement you can publish — in English or German. Nothing you type leaves this page; there is no server behind it and no email box to get past.

Who

A route that a real person reads. A feedback mechanism is required, and an unread inbox is worse than none.

Which law

Private business → European Accessibility Act. Public sector body → Web Accessibility Directive, which asks for more and exempts nobody.

Where you stand

Partial is the honest answer for almost everyone. Claiming full conformance you cannot evidence creates the exposure you were trying to avoid.

Specific beats vague. "Some PDFs are not tagged" is a statement; "the site may contain some issues" is not.

Output

German output uses the wording conventions of a Barrierefreiheitserklärung.

Three things worth knowing before you publish this

  • A statement is a claim, and claims get checked. Annex V of the European Accessibility Act asks service providers to explain how the service meets the accessibility requirements. Saying "fully conformant" when an automated scan finds unlabelled form fields is worse than saying "partially conformant" and listing them.
  • Date it, and mean the date. A statement from 2024 describing a site redesigned in 2026 tells a regulator you stopped paying attention. Re-check when the site changes materially, and at least once a year.
  • In Germany, market surveillance is real and named. Under the Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz, the sixteen federal states run a joint authority in Magdeburg — the Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder für die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen. It can act on complaints and on its own initiative.

This generator produces a document, not a legal opinion, and it cannot know things you did not type. If the stakes are high, have a lawyer in the relevant country read it before you publish.

Wondering whether any of this applies to you at all? Run the scope check — it says "no" more often than "yes".