New DOJ ADA Rule: What You Need to Know About Web & Mobile Accessibility

Overview

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has finalized “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities,” an ADA Title II rule that requires State and local governments to make their websites and mobile applications accessible in accordance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. While the rule is directed at public entities, it has meaningful implications for the higher education, research, ethics, and compliance communities, especially institutions with public components, public‑funded research, academic medical centers, or digital services offered to the public.

This article provides a clear and concise overview to help academic and research professionals understand what this new rule means and how to prepare.

Compliance Dates

The rule establishes phased compliance dates based on the population size of the public entity’s jurisdiction:

• Public entities serving a population of 50,000 or more must comply by April 24, 2026.
• Public entities serving a population of fewer than 50,000 must comply by April 24, 2027.

Population is measured by the jurisdiction served by the public entity (such as a state, county, or city), not by the size of the institution itself. Public colleges and universities are generally covered based on the population of the state or local government in which they are located.

All covered web content and mobile applications must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA by the applicable deadline, subject to the rule’s limited exceptions and defenses.

Why this rule matters for higher education and research

Digital services are increasingly central to how colleges, universities, research centers, and public health programs operate. Admissions, financial services, student portals, IRB and IACUC systems, research participant platforms, continuing education portals, and mobile apps all play a role in enabling participation. This rule formalizes expectations that have long existed ethically: people with disabilities must be able to use these systems independently, privately, and with the same timeliness as everyone else.

The DOJ’s adoption of WCAG 2.1 Level AA provides the clarity that many institutions have wanted. Instead of broad, conceptual obligations, colleges and universities now have a specific, measurable standard to follow for websites and mobile applications.

What’s covered under the new rule

The rule applies to web content and mobile apps provided by public entities, including content offered directly or through a contractual or licensing arrangement with a vendor. For higher education and research environments, this may include:

• University and college websites
• Student information systems and online course materials
• Financial aid and registrar services
• IRB and IACUC submission portals
• Research participant recruitment or enrollment platforms
• Campus service apps (transportation, housing, dining, safety)
• Public health or community outreach apps operated by university systems

If the institution is public, or if a public component of the institution offers these services online, they must comply.

The adopted standard requires meeting all WCAG 2.1 A and AA success criteria, along with WCAG’s conformance requirements, making this the new legal baseline for accessibility.

Key exceptions and what they don’t change

The DOJ created a handful of narrow exceptions so that institutions can focus on current, high‑impact content without having to retroactively remediate every historical file. These exceptions cover:

• Archived web content, if created before the compliance deadline, is used solely for reference or recordkeeping, has not been altered since, and is stored in clearly identified archive areas.
• Preexisting PDF/Word/PowerPoint/Excel files, unless they are currently used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in a program or service.
• Content posted by independent third parties, such as user‑generated comments, as long as the third party is not acting under contract for the institution.
• Individualized, secure documents, such as a student’s billing statement or a patient’s medical record, are provided after authentication.
• Preexisting social media posts published before the institution’s compliance date.

These exceptions reduce initial workload, but they do not eliminate the responsibility to provide access when needed. If a person with a disability requests access to exempted content, the institution must still provide an accessible version in a timely, privacy‑protective manner.

Mobile apps and vendor‑provided tools

Mobile apps receive the same treatment as websites. If a public college or university provides an app directly or through a contract, that app must meet WCAG 2.1 AA. The same applies to vendor-provided tools. If a service such as payment, registration, housing, appointments, transit, or research participation, is part of the institution’s offerings, it must be accessible, even if hosted elsewhere.

This is especially important in higher education and research ecosystems where third‑party platforms are common.

Conforming alternate versions ia allowed only in narrow circumstances

WCAG allows “conforming alternate versions,” but DOJ has limited when they can be used. Institutions may rely on an alternate accessible version only when it is truly impossible, due to technical or legal limitations, to make the primary version accessible. Alternate versions must also remain up to date and provide the same information and functionality. In most cases, institutions should focus on making the primary experience accessible by default.

Compliance flexibilities without sacrificing equity

The rule includes expected ADA guardrails such as the undue burden and fundamental alteration defenses. If fully meeting WCAG 2.1 AA for specific content would fundamentally change the nature of a program or impose significant financial/administrative burdens, the institution may modify its approach. But even then, it must provide access to the maximum extent possible and document the reasoning at an appropriate leadership level.

Another feature, the “minimal impact” provision, means that minor code errors that do not affect actual access will not automatically trigger noncompliance. This is helpful given how dynamic websites and apps can be.

How higher ed and research institutions can start preparing

Most institutions will need a coordinated plan involving IT, accessibility specialists, compliance officers, academic affairs, procurement, and communications. A practical early roadmap might include:

1. Establishing leadership and accountability.
   Identify who will own accessibility work institution‑wide, and ensure they have the authority to coordinate across departments.
2. Reviewing websites, apps, and digital workflows.
   Catalog core student‑facing, research‑facing, and public‑facing systems, with special attention to high‑impact tasks such as applying for programs, accessing coursework, completing compliance procedures, or participating in research.
3. Strengthening procurement practices.
   New vendor contracts should require WCAG 2.1 AA conformance and clear expectations for testing, certification, and remediation.
4. Updating design systems and content practices.
   Accessible templates, color schemes, components, and document standards help ensure new content is accessible from the start.
5. Providing training to content creators and instructors.
   Faculty, staff, and administrators all contribute to online content. Even simple practices, like adding alt text or ensuring headings are structured, can significantly improve accessibility.
6. Setting up continuous testing and monitoring.
   Accessibility is not a one‑time effort. Regular testing, feedback channels, and periodic audits help institutions stay compliant.

The big-picture takeaway

For the research, compliance, and higher‑education communities, this rule reinforces a foundational principle: accessibility is an ethical, legal, and operational obligation closely tied to equity, privacy, independence, and full participation.

Compliance deadlines vary by public entity size, with larger jurisdictions required to comply earlier than smaller ones. By the applicable April 2026 or April 2027 deadline, depending on jurisdiction size, institutions should be compliant and should be offering digital experiences that are consistently usable, equitable, and inclusive.