EAA vs ADA for agencies with mixed clients

Published Sep 14, 2026•Updated Sep 19, 2026•Complience.app

You do not need two scanners. EAA vs ADA is two cover letters around one scan.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is U.S. civil-rights law. Title III cases about websites are the ones lawsuit trackers count. The European Accessibility Act (EAA) is an EU directive. From 28 June 2025 it requires many products and services, including several digital ones, to meet accessibility requirements. Those requirements are often mapped through EN 301 549 to WCAG.

Agencies with mixed U.S. and EU clients are not running two checkers. They are writing two kinds of cover email around the same technical evidence. Keep EAA vs ADA in that email.

When we tested this, axe-core did not know which statute the client feared. It knew the button had no name. The statute belonged in paragraph one of the email. It did not belong as a badge on the PDF.

What is actually the same

Both conversations currently orbit WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA for web content. An axe-core check does not know which statute the client fears. It knows that a button has no name.

Use one EAA checker landing for EU-facing pages and one ADA compliance checker landing for U.S. fear/intent traffic. Keep the H1 honest: automated evidence, not a stamp.

WCAG 2.2 is the shared technical language. The WebAIM Million found detectable WCAG 2 failures on 95.9% of top home pages in 2026. That failure class is the same whether the cover letter says ADA or EAA.

In practice, the engine is WCAG. The vocabulary is local. Mixing them on the cover (“ADA/EAA certified”) is how you inherit both risks.

What is different

Enforcement. U.S. private lawsuits vs EU market-surveillance authorities and, in some member states, consumer tools. Seyfarth counted 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025 (ADA Title III report). See the statistics hub for how trackers differ. The EAA is not that docket.
Scope. ADA Title III arguments about websites as places of public accommodation vs EAA in-scope services (consumer banking, e-commerce, e-books, and more). Confirm with counsel. The legal text is Directive (EU) 2019/882, applicable to covered products and services from 28 June 2025.
Language. “ADA compliance checker” converts in search. “EAA” and “EN 301 549” convert in EU RFPs.

What actually works is one evidence pack and two intros. Do not fork the scan. Fork the email.

How to brief a client

Lead with pages scanned, dates, WCAG rule IDs, and cookie leaks. Name ADA or EAA in the intro paragraph only as the reason they asked, then repeat that the PDF is not a legal opinion.

The W3C’s Understanding Conformance page is the citation both sides should share. Conformance is about the content. Neither statute is a traffic-light score from axe-core.

Check a public URL and attach the sample report so they see the format before a paid seat.

Questions

If a site passes WCAG 2.2 AA, is it EAA and ADA compliant?: WCAG 2.2 AA is the usual technical target both conversations point at, including EN 301 549 mapping for many EU ICT products. Passing an automated checker is still not a legal determination under either law.
Should U.S. agencies care about the EAA?: If the client sells to EU consumers or operates an in-scope service there, yes. The scan is the same WCAG-oriented evidence; the cover letter should name the right statute.

Want evidence on a live URL? Run a free accessibility check.