A campaign can be beautiful while shutting out part of its audience. A video without captions, a form that cannot be completed using a keyboard, an offer whose terms are buried in an unreadable PDF: all create barriers between a message and its recipient. Since 28 June 2025, the application of new European requirements to certain products and services has changed the equation. In September 2026, the question therefore deserves to be reframed: no longer “should we make this communication accessible?” but “why did we design it without accessibility?”
What the deadline really changes
The central legislation is EU Directive 2019/882, often called the European Accessibility Act. Adopted in 2019 and subsequently transposed into national law, it provides for accessibility requirements to apply to a defined list of products and services from 28 June 2025. It aims to reduce the barriers faced by people with disabilities and harmonise rules across the European market.
Its scope includes e-commerce, certain consumer banking services, e-books, electronic communications and certain elements of passenger transport services. On the product side, consumer computers, e-readers, payment terminals and certain self-service terminals are among the equipment covered. It is therefore not a blanket obligation applying to every communication, every website and every business.
The distinctions matter. Microenterprises providing services benefit from an exemption under the directive. Transitional provisions exist for certain contracts or equipment. A fundamental alteration to a product or service, or a disproportionate burden, may also justify exceptions subject to specific conditions, rather than exemptions granted for convenience. The precise obligations must be checked against the applicable national legislation, without confusing this framework with the one governing public-sector accessibility.
From accessible messages to user journeys that work
For a communications department, the decisive shift is to look beyond individual pieces of content. An accessible advertisement is not enough if it leads to a shop that cannot be used with a screen reader. Conversely, a technically accessible payment process does not compensate for an incomprehensible product description or essential information available only in an image.
Consider a subscription campaign. A visitor discovers a video, visits a page, compares plans, creates an account and then pays for their order. At every stage, the journey can break down: missing captions, insufficient contrast, a button without a clear label, an error indicated only in red, authentication incompatible with certain assistive technologies. Accessibility is measured by how seamlessly the journey works, not by the number of good intentions proclaimed.
This approach requires communications, design, development, legal and customer service teams to work together. Communications professionals are not responsible for every line of code, but they influence the choices that make an experience usable: information architecture, text length, link labels, publishing formats and instructions given to agencies.
Captions matter; comprehension matters most
Video brings these issues into sharp focus. Captions give deaf and hard-of-hearing people access to the speech and sounds needed to understand the content. They are also useful on a noisy train or in a shared office. But this broader benefit must not obscure their primary purpose: providing access to information that would otherwise be inaccessible.
Useful captions are not an automatic transcript added without review. Proper names must be corrected, speakers identified where necessary, meaningful sounds conveyed and a manageable reading pace maintained. Their placement must not obscure a demonstration or important information. Depending on the content and the applicable framework, a transcript or audio description may also be necessary.
Beware, however, of oversimplifying the legal position: the 2025 deadline does not automatically require captions for every promotional video published in Europe. The scope of the obligations depends on the service, the content and other applicable rules. In practice, planning alternatives from the scripting stage remains a more robust approach than deciding at the end of editing who will be able to understand the video.
Readability is not an aesthetic extra
Text can be technically present yet practically inaccessible. Endless sentences, unexplained acronyms, vague headings and scattered commercial terms make reading harder, particularly for people with cognitive difficulties or a limited command of French. Clearly organised information, concrete verbs and explicit instructions reduce that effort.
It is nevertheless important to distinguish plain language from easy-to-read and understand, known in French as FALC. The latter follows a specific methodology that notably involves the people concerned in the process. Simplifying a paragraph is not enough to claim that designation. Likewise, the directive does not set a single level of simplification for all messages: some requirements are specific to particular services.
Presentation matters just as much. A link labelled “View pricing” is more informative than three “Click here” links. A document structured with proper headings is easier to navigate than a PDF made up of images. Alternative text describes the function or relevant information of a visual, without unnecessarily detailing every decorative element.
Change the briefs rather than pile on corrections
The task becomes manageable when it is incorporated into routine processes. Audiences, uses, expected alternative formats and acceptance criteria must be specified from the briefing stage. WCAG, the international Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, provide a major technical framework. However, they do not, on their own, encompass all European obligations, which also cover information about services and support.
- Before production: incorporate accessibility into contracts, budgets and editorial templates.
- During design: check structure, contrast, keyboard navigation and the clarity of instructions.
- Before publication: combine automated checks, manual testing and feedback from people with disabilities.
- After launch: provide an accessible contact channel and establish a process for resolving reported difficulties.
Automated tools detect certain flaws, but cannot assess the entire experience. They cannot guarantee that alternative text is relevant or that a user journey remains understandable. Overlays promising instant accessibility therefore replace neither work on content and code nor a thorough evaluation.
A lasting editorial responsibility
The benefits extend beyond compliance: better explanations, guidance and support improve service quality. But it would be misleading to promise an automatic commercial gain or a task that can be completed once and for all. Campaigns change, components evolve and flaws reappear. Accessibility requires clearly assigned responsibility, skills that are kept up to date and regular checks.
What next? The most plausible path is one in which accessibility is gradually integrated into procurement, publishing tools and editorial approval processes. AI could speed up transcription and description, provided human review is retained. For communications professionals, the challenge ahead is less about accumulating labels than making the evidence visible: an understandable message, an action that can be completed, support that can be reached. That is where a regulatory deadline can become a lasting practice.