Legal framework

Disproportionate burden and accessibility: what must be declared?

A disproportionate burden may justify not applying certain digital accessibility requirements, but it cannot be assumed. A company must determine what compliance would cost, retain its assessment and, depending on its circumstances, inform the competent authority. Silence does not constitute an exemption.

The short answer

For products and services covered by the European Accessibility Act, a disproportionate burden must be established through an assessment based on the criteria in European Directive 2019/882. The exception applies only to the requirements that create that burden, not necessarily to the entire service. The operator retains the evidence supporting its decision and, unless an exception applies to microenterprises, informs the competent authority. Failing to assess or report the burden does not establish an exemption.

First, determine whether the rules apply

The question is not “How much would compliance cost?” but “Which requirements apply to my business?” Directive (EU) 2019/882 targets specific categories of products and services. It covers, in particular, e-commerce services intended for consumers, but does not subject all private websites to the same rules. In France, these rules must be read alongside the legislation transposing the directive and the provisions of the Consumer Code applicable to the activity concerned.

The starting point is therefore practical: what service is provided, to whom, by which operator and through which digital journey? A website presenting a company, a journey that allows a customer to complete a purchase, and a service falling under another regulated category do not necessarily carry the same obligations. A company’s status is no substitute for this assessment of scope.

The requirements arising from the directive apply from 28 June 2025, subject to the transitional provisions set out in the legislation. A website’s launch date is not, on its own, enough to establish an exemption or determine which obligations apply. Before citing a disproportionate burden, identify the specific requirements your product or service would have to meet.

Official source: Directive (EU) 2019/882, in particular Articles 2, 4 and 31, available on EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882.

What “disproportionate burden” really means

A high cost does not, on its own, constitute a disproportionate burden. Article 14 of the Directive requires an assessment: the operator examines whether meeting a requirement would impose an excessive burden in light of the criteria in Annex VI. This means comparing documented costs with the activity concerned and the expected benefits for persons with disabilities.

The assessment concerns specific requirements. If one part of a user journey can be made accessible without a disproportionate burden, invoking the exception for another part does not remove the obligation to act on the first. Likewise, an alleged technical difficulty is not enough: the operator must show which adaptation was considered, why it would pose a problem and what evidence supports that assessment.

Annex VI sets out the following considerations, among others:

• The ratio of the net costs of making the product or service accessible to its overall costs.
• The ratio of those net costs to the operator’s net turnover.
• The estimated costs and benefits for the operator, weighed against the expected benefit for persons with disabilities, taking into account how the product or service is used.

This does not mean selecting the most favourable criterion and ignoring the others. A defensible conclusion explains the assumptions made, distinguishes one-off expenses from recurring expenses and retains the records needed to retrace the reasoning. The Directive also specifies that an operator receiving external funding intended to improve accessibility cannot invoke this exception.

Official source: Directive (EU) 2019/882, Article 14 and Annex VI, on EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882.

Building an assessment that can be reviewed

A useful file first describes the user journey concerned and the requirement that presents a challenge. It then links each claimed cost to an identifiable accessibility measure: design, development, testing, documentation or operation. Without that link, an overall redesign quote does not show what portion is actually attributable to accessibility or whether a less demanding solution was considered.

The comparison must be explicit. What is the estimated net cost of the accessibility measure? What assumptions underpin it? How does it compare with the overall costs of the activity and the operator’s net turnover? What benefit would the measure bring to people with disabilities who use the service? Annex VI provides a framework for these questions without setting an automatic threshold above which an exemption would be granted.

An inventory of detected issues can help define the work, but it does not constitute a disproportionate burden assessment. An automated scan, including the one offered by Inclaria, measures neither all the barriers users encounter nor the costs and benefits required for this analysis. Manual checks and a review of user journeys remain necessary to assess the issues and the possible accessibility measures.

The directive requires the assessment to be documented and made available to the competent authorities on request. It also provides for reassessment when the service concerned is modified, when an authority requests it and, for a service, at the intervals specified in Article 14. A file is therefore not a justification written once and left unchanged: its assumptions must remain tied to the service actually provided.

Official source: Directive (EU) 2019/882, Article 14 and Annex VI, on EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882.

Notify the right authority without inventing an exemption

Article 14 of the directive distinguishes between carrying out an assessment, retaining it and informing the authorities. When an operator invokes disproportionate burden, it must, except where the microenterprise exemption applies, inform the competent authorities of the Member States in which it places the product on the market or provides the service. Keeping an assessment in an internal file does not replace that notification when it is required.

For an activity overseen by the DGCCRF, searching for “DGCCRF notification” raises a useful question, but it should not lead you to assume that a single form applies to every activity. The authority to inform and the procedure to follow depend on the product or service and the applicable French provisions. Before sending anything, check which provisions of the French Consumer Code apply and the guidance published by the competent authority.

The information submitted must be consistent with the assessment retained: identification of the product or service, the requirements to which the exemption is applied, the reasons for the decision and the evidence needed to understand the burden invoked. Claiming a general exemption when the assessment concerns only one specific requirement would weaken the case. Informing the authority does not imply approval or guarantee that the assessment will be accepted during an inspection.

Silence accomplishes none of these steps. Without a documented assessment, there is no verifiable basis for invoking the exemption; without informing the authority when required, the operator fails to meet that separate obligation. The European reference is Article 14 of Directive (EU) 2019/882: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882.

Microenterprise: a separate exemption, not a status to presume

The directive defines a microenterprise using two cumulative criteria: it employs fewer than 10 people and has an annual turnover not exceeding 2 million euros or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding 2 million euros. These thresholds come from Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2019/882; they do not simply correspond to the French use of the term “microenterprise” to describe a tax or social security regime.

The distinction has practical consequences. Article 4 provides that microenterprises providing services are exempt from the directive’s accessibility requirements relating to those services and from the obligations associated with complying with them. This exemption is not a case-by-case finding of disproportionate burden. You must first check that the entity meets the European definition and that the activity concerned is indeed the provision of a service covered by the directive.

For products, do not automatically apply this exemption for services. The directive contains provisions specific to microenterprises when assessing a disproportionate burden, particularly concerning notification of the authorities and supporting documents that may be requested. The absence of a notification obligation in this context does not mean that every requirement disappears or that no explanation may be required.

A business that does not meet the European criteria does not become exempt because it describes itself as small, independent or a startup. Conversely, it would be incorrect to require a microenterprise providing a service to demonstrate a disproportionate burden to benefit from the exemption for services under Article 4. Official source: Directive (EU) 2019/882, Articles 3, 4 and 14: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882.

Do not confuse the European Accessibility Act with the RGAA exemption

In France, the “RGAA exemption for disproportionate burden” and the exception provided for by the European Accessibility Act may involve different procedures. The French accessibility framework for online public communication services, based in particular on Article 47 of the Law of 11 February 2005, requires organizations within its scope to publish an accessibility statement. That statement describes the accessibility status of a digital service under the rules applicable to it.

An accessibility statement is not, in itself, a notification of disproportionate burden under Article 14 of Directive 2019/882. Indicating an exemption in an RGAA statement is therefore not enough to establish that the obligations relating to an e-commerce service have been addressed. Conversely, notifying an authority under the European Accessibility Act does not replace an accessibility statement when another law requires one.

The approach is to keep the two questions separate: which law imposes an obligation on the entity and the service, and what exception does that same law provide? This distinction prevents a justification prepared for one framework from being copied into a document governed by another. It also helps articulate a position that technical teams can understand: the requirements concerned, the barriers identified, possible adjustments and the reasons for the decisions made.

Official sources: Article 47 of the Law of 11 February 2005 on Légifrance: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006682279 ; Directive (EU) 2019/882, Article 14: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882. For a specific case, particularly when a service falls under several frameworks, have a lawyer verify the scope and procedure. This content is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.