There is a clear pattern in how organisations respond to digital accessibility.

Some embed it into governance, funding, and senior decision-making.

Others leave it buried within delivery teams, framed as a technical clean-up task.

As regulatory expectations harden in 2026, that distinction becomes critical.

 

A recent Forbes article on web accessibility predictions does not focus on innovation or aspiration. It focuses on enforcement, legal exposure, and organisational readiness. The implicit message is simple: companies that have not elevated accessibility to board-level accountability are carrying the greatest risk 

This is no longer about awareness. It is about maturity.

 

The risk gap is widening, not shrinking

Accessibility has been discussed for years, but discussion alone does not reduce risk.

What 2026 introduces is a sharper divide between organisations that treat accessibility as:

  • A governance issue, tied to legal responsibility and brand reputation

  • Or a delivery issue, handled reactively by design and engineering teams

Only the first group is positioned to respond calmly to what is coming.

The Forbes article highlights several forces converging at once: updated expectations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically Title II in the United States; the European Accessibility Act (EAA) coming into force across the European Union; and increasing scrutiny of digital services more broadly.

Together, these changes remove the remaining uncertainty around whether accessibility is optional.

For companies without senior ownership of accessibility, this creates a structural problem. Decisions that affect compliance are still being made too late and too far down the organisation.

 

Board-level ownership is now the dividing line

Accessibility failures rarely happen because teams do not care.

They happen because:

  • Delivery deadlines override inclusive design

  • Third-party tools are adopted without accessibility review

  • Known issues are deferred repeatedly

  • No one has the authority to stop a release

When accessibility is not represented at board or executive level, these trade-offs are invisible where they matter most.

The organisations at greatest risk in 2026 are not those with minor compliance gaps. They are the ones where accessibility is absent from:

  • Corporate risk registers

  • Procurement and supplier requirements

  • Product success measures and reporting

  • Executive oversight

Regulators do not assess internal intent. They assess outcomes.

 

Ecommerce will surface these failures first

Online retail platforms are particularly exposed because accessibility failures are easy to demonstrate and easy to scale.

The EAA explicitly applies to ecommerce. That includes not just browsing products, but:

  • Creating and managing user accounts

  • Filtering and sorting product lists

  • Completing checkout and payment

  • Understanding errors and confirmations

These journeys are often built from layered components, external plugins, and custom code. If accessibility has not been designed in from the start, fixing it later becomes expensive and disruptive.

More importantly, ecommerce accessibility failures directly prevent people from completing purchases. That makes both legal and commercial impact straightforward to prove.

For boards that have not previously engaged with accessibility, ecommerce is likely where the issue first becomes unavoidable.

 

ADA Title II removes ambiguity

In the United States, updates to Title II of the ADA matter less for novelty and more for clarity.

They reduce the room for interpretation around what “accessible” means for public digital services. Alignment with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is no longer informal guidance. It is increasingly treated as the expected baseline.

This has consequences beyond the public sector. Vendors and service providers that sell to government bodies are pulled into the same expectations through procurement contracts.

When accessibility becomes a contractual requirement, it stops being optional.

 

Artificial intelligence does not lower the bar

The Forbes article is careful not to overstate the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in accessibility, and that caution is justified.

AI can assist with specific tasks, such as generating image descriptions or captions. It does not replace:

  • Clear page structure

  • Predictable navigation

  • Meaningful error messages

  • Testing with disabled users

In some cases, AI introduces new accessibility risks, particularly when automated interfaces manage focus poorly or generate inconsistent content.

Organisations that treat AI as a shortcut to compliance are likely to increase their exposure rather than reduce it.

 

Proactive accessibility creates competitive advantage

There is a second, often overlooked side to this shift.

Organisations that take accessibility seriously early do more than reduce risk. They position themselves as leaders within their sector.

When accessibility is embedded at board level, it tends to result in:

  • More usable products for everyone

  • Stronger trust with customers and partners

  • Faster entry into regulated markets

  • Better outcomes in public and enterprise procurement

Accessible products are typically more robust, easier to use, and more resilient to change. That translates directly into commercial advantage, not just compliance.

In competitive markets, accessibility maturity increasingly becomes a differentiator rather than a cost.

 

Compliance pressure exposes organisational weaknesses

What 2026 really tests is not technical capability.

It tests whether accessibility has:

  • A named executive sponsor

  • Dedicated funding

  • Decision-making authority

  • A clear escalation path

Where these are missing, responses will be slow and fragmented. Legal teams will be involved late. Engineering teams will be asked to retrofit under pressure. User trust will erode.

Where these foundations exist, accessibility becomes a managed risk rather than an emergency.

 

The practical takeaway

Accessibility is no longer something organisations can afford to “work towards” indefinitely.

If accessibility is not discussed at board level, reported alongside other risks such as security and data protection, and funded accordingly, the organisation is exposed.

2026 will not reward good intentions.

It will reward preparation.

The organisations that fare best will be those that treat accessibility not just as a legal requirement, but as a leadership issue and a competitive advantage, well before regulation and enforcement force the issue.