Alt Text and the Law: How WCAG 1.1.1 Became Central to ADA Lawsuits and the European Accessibility Act

Missing alt text isn't just a missed SEO opportunity — in several jurisdictions, it's increasingly the basis for actual legal claims against businesses, and the number of such claims has grown substantially in recent years

Web accessibility lawsuits — legal claims alleging that a website's inaccessibility to users with disabilities violates anti-discrimination law — have become a significant legal category, particularly in the United States under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and increasingly in the EU under the European Accessibility Act (EAA) and related national implementations. Missing or inadequate alt text on images is one of the most commonly cited specific issues in these claims — making this a topic where SEO best practice and legal risk management substantially overlap.

The ADA and website accessibility: the legal landscape

The ADA itself doesn't explicitly mention websites — it was enacted in 1990, before the modern web existed in its current form, and is primarily framed around "places of public accommodation" (physical locations). However, US courts have increasingly interpreted websites — particularly those of businesses that also have a "place of public accommodation" nexus (retail businesses with physical locations, restaurants, service providers, etc.) — as falling within ADA's scope, on the reasoning that a website is effectively an extension of the business's services, and inaccessibility to the website can constitute discrimination in accessing those services.

The absence of specific website accessibility regulations under the ADA (unlike, for instance, specific architectural accessibility standards for physical buildings) has meant that WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) — a technical standard, not itself a law — has become the de facto benchmark referenced in ADA-related website accessibility litigation and settlements, even though WCAG compliance isn't explicitly mandated by the ADA's text. Courts and settlement agreements have frequently referenced WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 Level AA as the standard a website should meet.

The volume of litigation: the number of ADA website accessibility lawsuits filed in US federal courts has been substantial in recent years — with various tracking organizations reporting thousands of such suits filed annually, a significant portion of which involve relatively small/mid-sized businesses (not just large enterprises), and a notable proportion of which are filed by a relatively concentrated set of plaintiffs/law firms that have specialized in this litigation category.

Where alt text fits into WCAG and accessibility claims

WCAG's "Text Alternatives" guideline (1.1.1) is one of the most fundamental requirements — at Level A (the most basic conformance level, below AA and AAA) — requiring that non-text content (images, primarily) have a text alternative that serves an equivalent purpose.

Why this is so commonly cited in accessibility claims:

• It's relatively easy to detect programmatically — automated accessibility scanning tools (which plaintiffs' representatives sometimes use as part of identifying potential targets/issues before filing claims) can straightforwardly identify images with missing alt attributes entirely
• It's a Level A (most basic) requirement — meaning a site failing this isn't just falling short of an advanced accessibility goal, but the most fundamental one
• The impact on screen-reader users is direct and easily articulated: a screen reader encountering an image with no alt text typically announces just "image" or the filename — providing no information about what the image is or conveys, for a user who can't see the image to infer this visually

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) and EU context

The EAA, with compliance deadlines that have come into effect, establishes accessibility requirements for a range of products and services within the EU — including e-commerce, banking, and various digital services — generally referencing EN 301 549 (a European accessibility standard that itself incorporates WCAG) as the relevant technical benchmark.

Unlike the somewhat indirect US ADA-via-court-interpretation pathway, the EAA represents more direct legislative requirements for digital accessibility for covered entities — with national implementing legislation across EU member states establishing enforcement mechanisms (which vary by member state, but generally include the possibility of penalties/enforcement actions for non-compliance, distinct from — though potentially in addition to — the kind of private litigation that characterizes much of the US ADA website-accessibility landscape).

The practical overlap with SEO: alt text, heading structure (covered in a previous article), and various other elements that constitute "good SEO practice" are substantially the same elements that constitute "WCAG compliance" for the corresponding accessibility guidelines — meaning a site that has genuinely implemented good alt text practices for SEO reasons has, as something of a byproduct, also addressed a meaningful portion of WCAG 1.1.1's requirements (though full WCAG conformance involves many criteria beyond alt text, covering keyboard navigation, color contrast, form labeling, and many other areas — alt text is one component of a much broader standard, not a complete accessibility solution on its own).

What "adequate" alt text means for legal/accessibility purposes (vs purely SEO purposes)

A previous article on this site covered writing alt text that serves both SEO and accessibility — the considerations from an accessibility/legal lens specifically emphasize:

Presence is the first threshold: an image with no alt attribute at all (not even alt="") is a more clear-cut WCAG 1.1.1 failure than an image with an alt attribute that's present but perhaps not optimally descriptive — automated scanning tools (and the kind of "low-hanging fruit" issues that tend to feature in accessibility claims) often focus on this presence distinction first.

Decorative images need alt="", not omitted alt attributes: for images that are purely decorative (convey no information — a decorative border graphic, for instance), WCAG guidance is that these should have an empty alt attribute (alt="") — which signals to screen readers "this image can be skipped, it's not informational" — as distinct from having no alt attribute at all (which can cause screen readers to announce the filename or "image," providing unhelpful noise for a genuinely decorative element). The distinction between "no alt attribute" and "empty alt attribute" is a technical one that's easy to get backwards if not specifically understood — and is sometimes flagged in accessibility audits even when informational images do have reasonable alt text, if decorative images are using the wrong of these two options.

Functional images (links, buttons that are images) need alt text describing the function, not just the appearance: an image that serves as a "submit" button needs alt text like "Submit" or "Search" (describing what activating it does) — not a description of what the image itself visually depicts (e.g., not "blue arrow icon"), if the image's visual appearance isn't the relevant information for a user who can't see it but needs to know what happens if they activate this control.

Auditing for compliance: beyond "does an alt attribute exist"

A genuinely useful accessibility-oriented alt-text audit (going beyond the SEO-oriented "are there missing alt attributes" check) would also examine:

• Are decorative images using alt="" (empty, but present) rather than either omitting the attribute or providing unnecessary descriptive text for purely decorative elements?
• Do functional images (linked images, image-buttons) have alt text describing their function, appropriately?
• For complex images conveying substantial information (charts, infographics, diagrams) — is the alt text sufficient to convey the key information, or would a user relying on alt text alone miss information that sighted users get from visually examining the image in detail? (For genuinely complex images, WCAG guidance sometimes points toward providing a longer text description near the image, in addition to a more concise alt attribute — since alt text itself has practical length considerations for how screen readers present it.)

How to use the Image Alt Checker on sadiqbd.com

1. Identify images with missing alt attributes entirely — the most basic, most commonly-flagged issue, and the starting point for both SEO and accessibility considerations
2. Review the distinction between missing and empty (alt="") attributes for images that appear to be decorative — these require different treatment, and a checker that simply reports "alt attribute present/absent" without this distinction may not capture whether decorative images are correctly marked
3. Cross-reference with WCAG 1.1.1 as part of a broader accessibility review — recognizing that alt text auditing is one component of accessibility compliance, not a complete accessibility audit in itself

Frequently Asked Questions

Does having good alt text protect a business from accessibility-related legal claims entirely? No — alt text addresses one WCAG criterion (1.1.1) among many that comprise full WCAG conformance (covering, among many other areas, keyboard navigation, color contrast, form labels, video captions, and more) — a site could have excellent alt text and still have other accessibility issues that could form the basis of a claim. Alt text is a meaningful and relatively achievable component of accessibility, but isn't, by itself, equivalent to "full accessibility compliance." Organizations genuinely concerned about accessibility compliance (as distinct from just the SEO benefits of good alt text) typically need a broader accessibility audit covering the full range of WCAG criteria, often involving accessibility specialists or dedicated accessibility auditing tools/services beyond what an alt-text-specific tool addresses.

Is this primarily a concern for large companies, or does it affect smaller businesses too? Reporting on ADA website accessibility litigation has indicated that a significant proportion of such suits target small and mid-sized businesses, not exclusively large enterprises — businesses with an online presence and a "place of public accommodation" nexus (which covers a very wide range of business types) have been named in such litigation regardless of size, making this a consideration relevant across business sizes, not solely a "big company" issue.

Is the Image Alt Checker free? Yes — completely free, no sign-up required.

Try the Image Alt Checker free at sadiqbd.com — find every image with missing alt text on any web page instantly.