Accessibility Statement Generator
Write an accessibility statement for the German BFSG or for BITV 2.0: compliance status, feedback route and enforcement, as a sample.
This tool produces a sample for orientation. It is not legal advice and does not replace having your specific case reviewed by a lawyer.
Who is issuing the statement?
Provider
State of accessibility
Preparation
Feedback
Enforcement
Still missing for a complete text: name of the provider, name of the service, date of preparation, contact channel for feedback, description of the non-accessible content.
Preview
Review the text before you publish it. Which details are mandatory depends on your business, not on this form — and this tool does not know your business.
Guide: Accessibility Statement Generator
The German Accessibility Strengthening Act has applied since 28 June 2025. It obliges businesses providing certain services to consumers — online shops, booking and appointment systems, banking services, passenger transport — to make their digital offerings accessible and to say publicly where they stand. Public bodies have had the same duty for longer, but by a different route: section 12b of the Disability Equality Act and the Barrier-Free Information Technology Ordinance.
Those are two different statements, and they look confusingly alike. The difference is at the end: a public body points to the conciliation body under section 16 BGG, a business points to the market surveillance authority of the federal states. Swap them and both texts are wrong — in a place nobody reads until somebody complains. This generator therefore asks first who is issuing the statement, and shapes the whole text around that answer.
Everything after that is an honest inventory: is the service fully, partially or not compliant with the standard applied? Which content is not, and why? How can people reach you when they hit a barrier, and how quickly do you answer? A statement claiming full compliance everywhere is rarely credible and, in case of doubt, an incorrect statement.
Typical use cases
An online shop under the BFSG
A shop selling to consumers has needed the statement since June 2025. The text names the act, the standard applied and the route to the market surveillance authority.
The booking system of a practice or workshop
Arranging appointments online is a service in the sense of the act. Anyone offering one owes a statement even where the rest of the website only informs.
A municipality or authority under BITV 2.0
Public bodies take the other route: section 12b BGG, the ordinance, and the conciliation body at the end. The choice at the top switches the entire text over.
Updating the statement after a review
The statement is not a one-off document. Enter the new review date and shorten the list of shortcomings by whatever has been fixed in the meantime.
Taking stock before a rebuild
The field for non-accessible content forces you to be specific. Filling it in leaves you with the list of what needs doing next to the service anyway.
How to use it
Choose the regime
A business under the BFSG, or a public body under BITV 2.0 and section 12b BGG. That choice controls more than a heading: it decides which rules are cited and which body a dissatisfied person can turn to at the end.
Name the service and the provider
Who is issuing the statement, and what does it cover? Name the service the way its users know it — “the online shop shop.example.com” is a better statement than “our digital offerings”.
Record the compliance status
Fully, partially or not compliant, together with the standard applied. Below full compliance the generator asks for a list of the non-accessible content — blanket sentences help nobody who has just hit a barrier.
State the reasoning and the assessment
Disproportionate burden, an exemption from the scope, or work in progress, and whether the assessment comes from a self-assessment or an external review. The dates of preparation and of the last review belong here too.
Set out the feedback route and publish
A contact channel that works and a period within which you answer. Then take the text over and publish it so that it stays findable, usually linked from the footer.
What happens to your data
The text is produced entirely in your browser; neither the details of your business nor the list of shortcomings you know about ever leave the device. The second point matters here in particular: what you write into the field for non-accessible content is an unvarnished account of what does not yet work about your service. That account goes to no server, and it is cached nowhere.
Frequently asked questions
Does the BFSG apply to my small business?
The act exempts microenterprises providing services: fewer than ten employees and at most two million euros of annual turnover or balance sheet total. That exemption does not apply to products. Whether your offering falls within the scope as a service is something to have checked for your particular case.
What is the difference between the BFSG and BITV 2.0?
The addressee and the route of redress. The BFSG addresses businesses offering certain products and services to consumers and is policed by the market surveillance authorities of the federal states. BITV 2.0 together with section 12b BGG addresses public bodies, where the route leads to the conciliation body under section 16 BGG. The substantive requirements are very similar; both refer to EN 301 549.
What do I write into the list of non-accessible content?
Specifically what you know: an untagged PDF, a video without subtitles, a form without associated labels, a map without a text alternative. The more precise the entry, the more likely someone finds their way to a version they can use — and the more credible the statement is as a whole.
How often do I have to review the statement?
It is meant to reflect the actual state, so after every substantial change to the service and otherwise at regular intervals. Public bodies are expected to review annually. The field for the date of the last review is therefore not decoration: it shows how old the claim is.
Is the statement enough, or do I have to rebuild the site?
The statement is the duty to inform, not the compliance itself. It describes the state of play and names a feedback route; it does not make the service accessible. Taken seriously, though, the list of shortcomings is exactly the work plan the rebuild needs.