It has been just over six months since the European Accessibility Act came into force in June 2025, and I have seen that the conversation has already shifted. This is no longer about future deadlines or theoretical exposure, but rather it is about whether organisations can defend their current position when challenged.

For those less familiar with it, the European Accessibility Act is EU legislation designed to ensure that people with disabilities can independently access essential products and services. While it is not a UK regulation, it does apply to UK organisations that offer customer-facing digital services to EU users. In practical terms, it sets legal accessibility requirements for websites, mobile apps, e-commerce platforms, and digital self-service journeys. If EU customers can access your digital services, even if your organisation is based solely in the UK, the regulation applies.

Many organisations know the EAA exists, however fewer are clear on whether it applies to them. Fewer still can say, with confidence, that their digital services would stand up to scrutiny today.Part of the challenge is that accessibility is often misunderstood as a narrow or technical issue, when in reality it shows up in very practical ways. It includes whether a website can be navigated using a keyboard rather than a mouse, whether images and icons have meaningful text alternatives for screen reader users, whether colour contrast makes content readable for people with visual impairments, and whether forms, checkouts, and customer journeys work reliably with assistive technologies. It also extends to how errors are communicated, how content is structured, and whether users can complete key tasks independently without unnecessary barriers.

What has noticeably changed in the past 6 months is the pace. In France, large retailers including Auchan, Carrefour, E. Leclerc, and Picard are already facing lawsuits after failing to act on accessibility issues they were made aware of. These cases are not being framed as technical oversights, but instead they are being described publicly as digital discrimination, because inaccessible services limit the independence of visually impaired users in everyday activities like grocery shopping. Once that narrative takes hold, the damage is done long before a regulator gets involved.

That is the risk many organisations underestimate. Non-compliance is not just about fines or enforcement notices. It is about public exposure, brand damage, and being seen to have ignored an issue after it was raised. Advocacy groups and online communities are increasingly driving this, and they move far faster than regulatory processes ever will.

The pressure is only increasing. WCAG 2.2 has now been approved as ISO/IEC 40500:2025, which removes much of the ambiguity around what “accessible” actually means. This is now a globally recognised benchmark, and it is what organisations will be measured against, in the EU and elsewhere.

Yes, there is a formal compliance horizon that runs to 2030, but early enforcement activity is already showing that waiting is not a safe strategy, particularly where accessibility issues have been identified and left unresolved. The organisations coming under pressure first are not the ones who missed a checkbox, they are quite simply the ones who knew and didn’t act.

At BIP, we are increasingly seeing this playing out across sectors. The organisations in the strongest position are not the ones claiming compliance, but the ones that can evidence progress, prioritisation and ownership. Accessibility works best when it is treated as part of digital delivery and customer experience, not a one-off compliance exercise delegated to the margins.

So the real question is not whether accessibility matters, it is whether if someone raised a concern tomorrow, you could clearly show where you stand and what you are currently doing about it.

If that question gives you pause for your own organisation, it is probably worth a conversation.