--- title: "The FTC complaint, company response and final consent order" language: en canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/accessibe/ftc-order/ as_of: 2026-10-10 --- # The FTC complaint, company response and final consent order **Question.** What did the FTC allege, and what did the companies actually agree to do? **Answer.** The complaint alleges misleading compliance and review practices. The final order imposes payment and conduct requirements without an admission of those allegations. ## What the complaint alleged - Analysis: The FTC alleged that accessiBe overstated accessWidget’s ability to make any website compliant with WCAG and maintain that compliance automatically. Its complaint challenged the advertised immediate 30% and subsequent 48-hour 70% remediation process, described unresolved barriers found in testing, and alleged paid reviews presented as independent content. [s-d33] [s-d117] [s-d120] [s-d126] [s-d354] - Qualification: These are allegations in the FTC complaint, not admissions by the respondents or a contested trial judgment. - Response: accessiBe said the investigation concerned 2019–2022, denied the allegations and described the testing as deficient and outdated. - Outcome: The companies entered a consent order without admitting or denying the allegations, except the jurisdictional facts admitted for that proceeding. ## What the final order requires - Analysis: The FTC issued its final consent order on 21 April 2025 and announced approval on 22 April. It requires a $1 million payment to the Commission, prohibits misleading or unsupported WCAG-compliance representations, bars misrepresentations of independent endorsements and requires disclosure of material connections. [s-d8] [s-d114] [s-d115] [s-d118] [s-d120] [s-d140] - Qualification: The WCAG provision allows non-misleading claims supported by competent and reliable evidence; it is not a blanket prohibition on the product or all compliance claims. The order requires payment, while the retained record does not establish actual payment or completed consumer refunds. - Response: The respondents neither admitted nor denied the complaint’s allegations, apart from the jurisdictional admissions. - Outcome: The January proposal became a final order following public comments. Its term is generally 20 years, subject to the order’s specified provisions. ## Ftc domain - Analysis: The consent provisions require disclosure that third-party domains and subdomains are not covered unless they also use the automated product, and impose compliance reporting and recordkeeping duties. Commissioner Ferguson’s January concurrence, joined by Commissioner Holyoak, expressly took no position on whether the ADA or WCAG requires accessibility of integrated third-party domains. [s-d114] [s-d117] [s-d118] - Qualification: The concurrence’s limitation should not be converted into either a general accessibility exemption or a judicial interpretation of the ADA. The retained proposed-order text describes a sworn compliance report one year after issuance; no such report is present. ## Ftc advertising - Analysis: The FTC complaint alleged payments of $1,900 for a September 2020 Webdesigner Depot review and $850 for a September 2020 review on UX Planet, alongside free use of accessWidget. It also alleged that an unnamed marketing company generated content intended to look independent. [s-d33] [s-d354] - Qualification: The complaint is an allegation source, and it does not identify the unnamed agency as MarketAcross, InboundJunction or any investor’s business. - Response: accessiBe denied the FTC’s allegations and criticized the investigation’s testing and historical information. - Outcome: The final consent order regulates representations of independent endorsements and material-connection disclosures without an admission of the complaint’s allegations. ## The company’s response - Analysis: In its reported January 2025 response, accessiBe said the investigation concerned 2019–2022, denied liability, characterized the FTC’s testing as deficient and outdated, and maintained that its technology could support customers’ accessibility requirements. [s-d181] [s-d272] [s-d354] - Qualification: This is the company’s position, not the FTC’s conclusion. The complaint expressly challenged compliance representations, and the final order requires competent and reliable support for them. ## Ftc comments - Analysis: FTC letters acknowledge supportive comments from the National Federation of the Blind, UsableNet, Accessible Web, Adrian Roselli, Lainey Feingold and Karl Groves. Some sought stronger remedies or larger monetary relief. The Commission declined additional requirements and issued the order without modification. [s-d114] - Qualification: These letters document the comments and the FTC’s response, not agreement by all disability organizations or independent findings on every product feature. ## Sources - [s-d33] Federal Trade Commission retained record 33, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d117] Federal Trade Commission retained record 117, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d120] Federal Trade Commission retained record 120, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d126] Federal Trade Commission retained record 126, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d354] Media source · s-d354 - [s-d8] Federal Trade Commission retained record 8, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d114] Federal Trade Commission retained record 114, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d115] Federal Trade Commission retained record 115, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d118] Federal Trade Commission retained record 118, Federal Trade Commission - [s-d140] Court record source · s-d140 - [s-d181] Media source · s-d181 - [s-d272] Media source · s-d272