What happens if a town does not meet the web rule

What happens if a town does not meet the web rule?

What happens if a town does not meet the web rule depends on who notices and what they do. Nothing is automatic: no agency audits towns on a calendar. A resident can complain to a federal agency, the agency can investigate, and a resident can sue. In Colorado, a state law adds its own suit and fine.

This guide sticks to what the regulations and statutes say. It does not estimate how often towns are sued, because we have not found a reliable public count. For the rule itself, start with the pillar guide. For where the dates stand, see the deadline tracker.

A complaint to the Justice Department

A complaint to the Justice Department is the most common federal path. Any person who believes they were treated unfairly because of a disability can file one, alone or through a representative. The complaint has to be filed within 180 days of the problem, unless the agency extends the time for good cause.

An individual may file a complaint with any agency that he or she believes to be the appropriate agency designated under subpart G of this part, or with any agency that provides funding to the public entity that is the subject of the complaint, or with the Department of Justice for referral as provided in § 35.171(a)(2).

28 CFR 35.170(c)

The Department’s complaint page says what may follow. It might refer the complaint to its mediation program or to another agency, contact the person for more information, or investigate, “which could lead to a settlement or a lawsuit.” It also says, “we cannot investigate every complaint,” and that its review can take up to three months.

If an agency investigates and cannot resolve the matter informally, the regulation says it issues a letter of findings with “A description of a remedy for each violation found (including compensatory damages where appropriate)” (28 CFR 35.172(c)).

A private lawsuit under Title II

A private lawsuit under Title II is the second federal path, and it does not depend on an agency. A person can go to federal court whether or not they filed a complaint, and whether or not an agency found a violation. The remedies come from the Rehabilitation Act, through 42 U.S.C. 12133.

At any time, the complainant may file a private suit pursuant to section 203 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 12133, whether or not the designated agency finds a violation.

28 CFR 35.172(d)

The statute points to the Rehabilitation Act for “the remedies, procedures, and rights” available (42 U.S.C. 12133). What a court can award in a given case is a question for your attorney. Web access cases against governments are not new: the Department wrote in 2024 that it had already “brought enforcement actions to address web content and mobile app access, resulting in a significant number of settlement agreements with State and local government entities” (89 FR 31329).

In Colorado: a state court claim and $3,500 per violation

In Colorado, a state court claim is available now, not in 2028. HB21-1110 made a public entity’s failure to meet the state accessibility standards a form of discrimination, and the statute lets a person with a disability sue for a court order to fix the problem, plus either actual damages or a statutory fine of $3,500 per violation.

(II) The recovery of actual monetary damages; or (III) A statutory fine of three thousand five hundred dollars, payable to each plaintiff for each violation.

C.R.S. 24-34-802(2)(a), as amended by SB23-244

The same 2023 act added a limit: for a claim about accessibility standards, “the violation must be considered a single incident and not as separate violations if the violation occurred on a single digital product, including a website or an application.” OIT adds: “There is no enforcement agency,” and “An individual with a disability can sue in a Colorado court if they feel that they have experienced discrimination due to a lack of accessibility” (OIT). For the paths that meet the state rules, see our HB21-1110 guide.

The burden under 35.205

Section 35.205 is the rule’s safety valve for small gaps, and it puts the burden on the town. A document that falls short of WCAG 2.1 Level AA can still be treated as meeting the rule, but only if the town can demonstrate the gap has so little impact that people with disabilities are not affected.

The Department’s explanation leaves no doubt about who carries that load:

As the text of the provision indicates, the burden of demonstrating applicability of § 35.205 is on the public entity.

Appendix to the 2024 rule, 89 FR 31387

The same page says it “would not be sufficient for a public entity to show only that it has not received any complaints.” Silence is not evidence. A dated record of what was checked and fixed is; see keeping an accessibility record and the text of 28 CFR 35.205.

What we could not find

We could not find reliable numbers for suits against small towns over their documents, and we do not guess. We also found no public court record of an HB21-1110 suit against a Colorado town, county or special district. We will add a case to this page only when we can cite a court record.

That gap cuts both ways. It is not proof that nobody sues. It is a reason to ask for a case name and number whenever someone quotes a number of suits. The facts above, the complaint path, the private suit, the Colorado fine and the burden under 35.205, are enough to plan around.

A worked example: a complaint about a packet

A worked example shows how a complaint unfolds. Picture a hypothetical town of 2,400 people, in any state, in the summer of 2028. A resident who is blind tries to read the council packet before a hearing on a road project. The packet is a scan. Their screen reader finds nothing.

The resident emails the clerk and, not hearing back in time, files a complaint with the Justice Department. Months later, the Department contacts the town.

Two things now matter. First, what the town did when the resident asked: the effective communication duty in 28 CFR 35.160 applied the day the email arrived. Second, what the town can show about its packets since the deadline: which were checked, which were fixed, and when. A town with dated answers to both questions is in a far easier conversation than one without.

What lowers the risk

What lowers the risk is ordinary, steady work. Fix new meeting documents before or as they are posted, answer requests for accessible copies quickly, publish a clear way to ask for help, and keep dated notes of each step. None of this guarantees an outcome, but each step shortens the list of things a complaint can point to.

• Check what you post. Our free PDF checker shows which files a screen reader cannot read.
• Publish how to ask for help. Our accessibility statement generator drafts one, with more than one contact method.
• Know your older documents. See old documents: fix, archive or delete.
• Know who is responsible. Your vendor does not carry the duty for you; see who is responsible.

What we do about it

What we do about it is the steady part. Each month we find the agendas, packets, minutes and notices your town posts, fix the ones a screen reader cannot read, have a person check every file, and record each step with its date in the Readable Record. See how it works or start with a free check.

This guide explains the rule in plain language. It is not legal advice. For decisions about your town, talk to your attorney.