Regulation

Non-compliant website: agency or client responsibility?

A website delivered without sufficient accessibility raises an immediate question: who should fund its compliance? The answer depends on the applicable legal framework, the signed contract, the agency’s duty to advise, and the conditions under which acceptance was declared.

The short answer

In principle, the legal obligation for accessibility rests with the company that provides or operates the service in question. This does not mean that the agency is always exempt: it may have to correct the issues at its own expense if accessibility was part of the contract, if the delivery does not comply with the agreed specifications, or if its duty to advise was insufficient. Without a clear clause or documented evidence, the allocation of costs becomes more uncertain.

Who bears the legal obligation for accessibility?

The first distinction to make concerns regulatory responsibility and contractual responsibility. When a service falls within the scope of the European Accessibility Act, the company providing that service to the public must ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. Outsourcing the design of the website does not automatically transfer this obligation to the agency.

The [European Directive 2019/882](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/882/oj?locale=fr), applicable since 28 June 2025, covers certain e-commerce, transport, retail banking, electronic communications, and audiovisual media access services. French law specifies its transposition, controls, and penalties. Not all organisations or websites necessarily fall under the same regime: the service offered, the size of the company, the target audience, and any exemptions must be examined.

Micro-enterprises providing services are notably exempted by the directive if they employ fewer than ten people and their annual turnover or total annual balance sheet does not exceed €2 million. This regulatory exemption does not render accessibility unnecessary, nor does it negate an obligation expressly provided for in the contract.

For the operating client, the argument “our agency built the website” is insufficient when facing the competent authority or users. For the agency, the opposite argument, “only the client is responsible”, does not resolve the issue of proper execution of its mission. Both legal aspects must be analysed separately.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The qualification of a service, the application of an exemption, or the analysis of a contract must be entrusted to a lawyer for a specific case.

What the contract changes in the distribution of costs

The contract determines what the agency was actually required to deliver. Under Article 1103 of the French Civil Code, legally formed contracts serve as law for those who have made them. The specifications, the accepted quote, technical annexes, exchanges included in the contractual scope, and acceptance criteria can therefore carry more weight than a general commercial promise.

A clause providing for a website “compliant with WCAG” or “compliant with legal accessibility requirements” must specify the version of the standard, the targeted level, the pages covered, and the verification method. Without these elements, the word “compliant” may conceal differing expectations. An agency may have planned a few technical best practices, while the client thought they were purchasing full compliance.

Conversely, the absence of the word “accessibility” is not always sufficient to exclude all discussion. The contract may require compliance with applicable regulations, defined professional standards, or functional needs that are incompatible with certain access barriers. The exact scope of these formulations depends on the signed document and the circumstances of the assignment.

It is also necessary to identify the origin of the defects. A faulty keyboard navigation in a component developed by the agency is not handled the same way as an image without an alternative added later by the client’s editorial team. Themes, extensions, content, third-party tools, and changes made after delivery must be traced back.

Can the agency’s duty to advise be engaged?

A web agency acts in a professional capacity. Depending on the mission and the respective competencies of the parties, it may be required to inform its client, alert them to certain constraints, and propose a solution consistent with the expressed need. This duty to advise, largely shaped by case law, does not, however, have the same intensity or content in all projects.

Article 1112-1 of the French Civil Code also governs the pre-contractual duty of information when a piece of information decisive for the other party’s consent is legitimately unknown. Its application to an accessibility dispute would depend on the facts: nature of the service, awareness of the regulatory context, questions asked, client’s expertise, and statements made before signing.

Factors that may be considered

• The client explicitly stated that their service fell within a regulated sector.
• The agency presented itself as a specialist in accessibility or compliance.
• The specifications contained requirements incompatible with the proposed solution.
• The agency was aware of a blocking risk but did not report it in writing.
• The client refused an audit service or corrections after receiving an explicit alert.

A generalist agency does not automatically become liable for all of the client’s legal compliance. However, it must avoid making claims it cannot substantiate and formalise its reservations. For its part, the client must communicate the constraints of their activity and decide on the necessary services. Responsibility may be shared when multiple failures have contributed to the outcome.

The acceptance testing phase is the decisive moment, not a formality

Acceptance testing involves verifying that the deliverable meets the specifications before its approval. For accessibility, validation limited to visual appearance, major browsers, and the functioning of a few forms overlooks critical defects: tab order, screen reader rendering, accessible labels, focus management, or error messages.

The acceptance report must distinguish between blocking defects, reservations to be corrected, known limitations, and elements excluded from the scope. Acceptance without reservations may complicate a subsequent dispute regarding defects visible during scheduled tests. It does not necessarily nullify a hidden defect, a persistent contractual obligation, or misleading information, but its effect depends on the contract and the facts.

Building a contradictory assessment

• Define in advance the pages, user journeys, components, and environments to be checked.
• Use the same version of the site and record its date, address, and deployment identifier.
• Archive the report, relevant screenshots, and results of manual checks.
• Have both parties qualify each discrepancy and document disagreements.
• Conduct a new check after corrections using the same protocol.

A contradictory automated scan at delivery helps freeze a measurable part of the site’s state and objectify the acceptance process. Inclaria can be used to produce this initial record before and after corrections, but no scanner alone demonstrates full compliance: certain requirements necessitate human verification, particularly regarding the relevance of texts, the consistency of user journeys, and usage with assistive technologies.

The term “contradictory” implies that each party can review the method, examine the results, and provide observations. A report generated unilaterally, several months after delivery and on a site already modified, remains useful for detecting defects but less effectively establishes their origin.

What recourse is available when a website is delivered non-accessible?

The first recourse is generally amicable. The client must notify the defects precisely, link them to contractual requirements, and request a response within a suitable timeframe. A structured list of reproducible issues is more effective than a blanket accusation of non-compliance.

The agency may then acknowledge corrections falling under its delivery, contest certain findings, or propose a shared approach when the scope has evolved. An addendum can frame additional work without erasing the initial disagreement. Each party has an interest in preserving versions of the site, reports, tickets, acceptance test records, and validation exchanges.

Steps in an attempt to resolve the issue

• Review the contract, specifications, exclusions, and acceptance conditions.
• Distinguish defects present at delivery from those introduced by subsequent modifications.
• Send a written notification describing the discrepancies and the requested solution.
• Organise a counter-expertise or mediation if the technical analysis remains contested.
• Consult a lawyer before any formal notice or contentious procedure.

Article 1217 of the French Civil Code lists several possible sanctions in the event of contractual non-performance, including specific performance, price reduction, contract termination, and compensation for the consequences of non-performance. These mechanisms are subject to precise conditions and do not guarantee any outcome. The appropriate remedy depends, in particular, on the severity of the breach, the contract clauses, the formalities already completed, and the technical feasibility of corrections.

The 'conformity guarantee' must be used with caution. The legal conformity regime under the Consumer Code protects consumers in situations covered by this code. Many web projects between a business client and an agency fall under general contract law and their specific clauses instead.

The accessibility clause to draft before signing

The best risk allocation is decided before development. A useful clause does not abstractly promise an 'accessible' website. It transforms the objective into deliverables, responsibilities, tests, and verifiable acceptance criteria.

The minimum content of the clause

• The chosen standard, its version, the targeted level, and any legal requirements specific to the service.
• The exact scope: page templates, components, user journeys, content, and third-party interfaces.
• The distribution of tasks between design, development, editorial contribution, and validation.
• The acceptance protocol, including automated checks, manual tests, and the handling of reservations.
• Maintenance rules after delivery, particularly for updates and new content.

The clause must also specify who provides text alternatives, captions, accessible documents, and final content. The agency cannot validate the relevance of an alternative text missing from the brief, while the client cannot alone correct a component whose focus is technically inaccessible. A simple responsibility matrix prevents each party from attributing defects to the other.

It is preferable to define a measurable obligation rather than an absolute guarantee. The contract may provide for an audit on a representative sample, the correction of defects within the scope, the submission of a report, and a procedure for discrepancies discovered after acceptance. It must also address the handling of third-party solutions that the agency does not control.

The accessibility statement, when required, should not be confused with technical acceptance. It publicly describes the state of compliance, any non-accessible content, and contact channels. Its preparation requires sufficiently documented results, but its publication is generally the responsibility of the organization overseeing the service.

A clear clause protects both parties. The client knows what they are purchasing and retains verification elements. The agency controls its commitment, estimates the necessary tests, and can demonstrate any warnings or reservations raised during the project.