On 2 September 2026, ETSI, CEN and CENELEC published EN 301 549 v4.1.1, the technical standard behind the European Accessibility Act (EAA). It is a sound piece of engineering. The timing around it is the problem: companies have been legally obliged to be accessible since 28 June 2025, and the standard that would tell them how to prove it still has no legal effect.
What changed in the standard
The headline change is the baseline. The web, non-web document and software clauses move from WCAG 2.1 to WCAG 2.2 at Levels A and AA, according to Ireland's National Disability Authority. Law firm Davis Wright Tremaine reports that the standards bodies formally adopted the text on 24 August 2026 and published it on 2 September (DWT).
WCAG 2.2 itself adds nine success criteria, three of them at the AAA level, and removes one obsolete criterion, 4.1.1 Parsing (W3C). The Level A and AA additions are practical. They cover focus not being hidden behind sticky headers (2.4.11), dragging alternatives (2.5.7), minimum touch-target size (2.5.8), consistent help (3.2.6), redundant entry (3.3.7) and accessible authentication (3.3.8). Most of these fix everyday failures that block people using keyboards, screen magnifiers, tremor-affected pointing, or cognitive support tools. The NDA adds that v4.1.1 is the first version developed with the EAA in mind, and that it includes an annex mapping its clauses to the Act's essential requirements.
The steelman for strict enforcement now
The strongest case for pressing ahead is simple. The EAA is a directive, and Member States were required to transpose it years ago; the Commission describes its role as monitoring correct transposition and implementation (European Commission). The obligations are written in functional terms, and WCAG 2.1 AA has been the de facto benchmark for years. A company that cannot make a checkout usable with a keyboard does not need a harmonised standard to know it has a problem. Waiting for perfect legal scaffolding, the argument goes, only rewards laggards while disabled consumers go without.
Why the gap still matters
That argument is right about the worst offenders and wrong about everyone else. Publication is not citation. The standard becomes a legal safe harbour only when the Commission cites it in the Official Journal of the EU. Until then, v3.2.1, which is based on WCAG 2.1, remains the cited version, and the NDA notes there is no immediate compliance deadline attached to v4.1.1. Once cited, v4.1.1 will give a presumption of conformity with both the EAA and the Web Accessibility Directive.
When that will happen is not settled. The NDA says it expects citation on 16 December 2026. A vendor projection pointed instead to around 30 November. We could not confirm either date against the Official Journal, so treat both as expectations, not commitments.
The result is an awkward interim period. A firm that builds to WCAG 2.2 AA today is exceeding the older cited baseline but gains no formal presumption. A firm that stays on 2.1 AA has the older standard but may be building toward something already superseded. Either way, the safe harbour that makes compliance cheap to demonstrate does not yet exist. For small and mid-sized businesses, which lack in-house accessibility engineers, that uncertainty is itself a cost. It tends to push spending toward legal advice and consultants instead of fixing interfaces.
Courts are filling the vacuum, unevenly
With no cited standard, enforcement runs through national courts, and the early French cases show how inconsistent that can be. According to Deque, on 4 June 2026 the Tribunal judiciaire de Caen ordered Carrefour France to make its online commerce services accessible within six months, with fines for each day of delay. Carrefour had estimated it already met 71% of the criteria; the judge reportedly answered that an e-commerce site cannot be "somewhat accessible" but must be fully accessible.
In early May, by contrast, the Tribunal judiciaire de Lille dismissed a case against Auchan E-Commerce brought by the associations apiDV and Droit Pluriel, even while acknowledging that Auchan's site did not meet accessibility standards. The plaintiffs are appealing to the Court of Appeal of Douai. These details come from a single vendor's account, and we have not reviewed the judgments themselves.
Two courts, two outcomes, and neither anchored to a harmonised technical benchmark. A demand for "total" accessibility is also a stricter test than the EAA's own text, which allows for proportionality defences such as disproportionate burden. A standard cited in the Official Journal is precisely what would let judges, regulators and companies argue about specific criteria instead of abstract adjectives.
What a proportionate path looks like
Three practical steps follow. First, the Commission should treat citation as a priority and publish a clear date, since every week of delay extends the period of legal ambiguity. Second, national market surveillance authorities should publicly state that conformance to v4.1.1 will be treated as good-faith compliance during the transition, so firms investing in WCAG 2.2 are not penalised for moving early. Third, courts should anchor orders in measurable criteria, such as the specific WCAG success criteria, not vague totality tests that no large site can meet on the day of judgment.
None of this is a case for weakening accessibility duties. People who rely on assistive technology deserve working websites now. But a regime that is serious about outcomes should give builders a clear target. Right now the technical work is done, and the legal plumbing is what is missing.