Following the U.S. Department of Justice’s April 2024 Title II rule requiring WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance for public institutions, accessibility documentation such as VPATs is increasingly used to screen vendors during RFPs. Roughly 70 percent of edtech tools now publish VPATs. The implication is that accessibility compliance increasingly determines vendor eligibility in institutional procurement cycles.

Today’s deep-dive covers:

Digital accessibility is increasingly functioning as an early procurement filter in higher education software markets. Regulatory enforcement, particularly the U.S. Department of Justice’s April 2024 Title II rule under the Americans with Disabilities Act, requires digital services used by state and local governments, including public higher education platforms, to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards.

The regulatory change places legal responsibility on the institution that deploys the software rather than on the vendor that provides it. Universities, colleges, and public education systems, therefore, bear legal liability if the digital tools they adopt are not accessible to users with disabilities.

Because institutions carry this liability, procurement processes increasingly include accessibility screening mechanisms. Many RFPs now require vendors to provide Accessibility Conformance Reports or Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates demonstrating WCAG compliance before products can advance in the evaluation process. Vendors that cannot provide credible documentation are often excluded to reduce institutional legal exposure.

Evidence from the edtech market suggests this shift is already underway.

Approximately 70 percent of education technology tools now publish a VPAT or similar accessibility documentation. This pattern indicates that accessibility documentation has become a prerequisite for participating in institutional procurement cycles.

The resulting implication is structural. Accessibility compliance increasingly functions as an early vendor qualification requirement rather than a post-deployment improvement initiative. Vendors that cannot demonstrate accessibility compliance risk exclusion from institutional software procurement processes.

Accessibility compliance is increasingly treated as an institutional governance issue rather than a narrow technical concern. As regulatory exposure rises, responsibility for evaluating accessibility risk is shifting from operational teams toward legal, procurement, and executive leadership functions.

Accessibility failures increasingly expose institutions to regulatory investigations and litigation. Public universities and colleges have already faced enforcement actions tied to inaccessible digital learning environments.

For example, the American Public University System underwent a compliance review by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights examining accessibility deficiencies in its learning management system and course materials. Cases of this type demonstrate that regulatory scrutiny can extend directly to institutional digital learning infrastructure.

Private lawsuits related to inaccessible courseware and digital platforms also continue to emerge, particularly when students using assistive technologies such as screen readers cannot access course content or institutional systems.

These developments suggest that accessibility risk is no longer hypothetical. When accessibility failures occur, enforcement actions and legal claims typically target the institution operating the technology rather than the vendor that developed it.

Because institutions carry legal liability, procurement and legal teams increasingly act as gatekeepers for accessibility risk during vendor evaluation. Rather than relying solely on technical teams to assess accessibility informally, institutions are embedding compliance documentation requirements into procurement workflows.

Accessibility Conformance Reports and VPAT documentation now function as formal evidence used by procurement teams to evaluate whether a product can be deployed safely within the institution’s digital ecosystem. Vendors that cannot produce credible documentation face increasing difficulty entering institutional procurement cycles.

Evidence from the edtech sector indicates that accessibility documentation has become a standard prerequisite for vendor participation in institutional buying processes.

Accessibility compliance is increasingly intersecting with institutional risk management, procurement policy, and regulatory oversight. As investigations, lawsuits, and public scrutiny increase, senior leadership teams are more likely to treat accessibility as an enterprise risk issue rather than an operational concern.

Under this governance model, institutional software decisions are evaluated not only on functionality and cost but also on whether the technology introduces legal or regulatory exposure. This governance shift raises the strategic stakes for vendors competing in higher education software markets.

Software and edtech vendors are increasingly embedding accessibility into product engineering processes because procurement requirements and regulatory enforcement make late-stage remediation insufficient.

Accessibility compliance historically functioned as a documentation exercise for many software vendors. VPATs were often produced late in the product cycle and updated periodically for procurement purposes.

However, accessibility compliance is difficult to maintain through documentation alone. Modern web and mobile applications evolve frequently, and new features, integrations, or interface changes can introduce accessibility failures. Testing experts note that dynamic digital environments often create new accessibility gaps as products evolve.

In response, some software companies are integrating automated accessibility testing directly into CI/CD pipelines so accessibility issues can be identified during development rather than after deployment. This approach reflects broader trends in software engineering where compliance checks are embedded into development workflows.

Industry estimates suggest that approximately 39 percent of organizations are currently on track to meet upcoming accessibility mandates tied to major regulatory frameworks. This indicates that a large portion of digital platforms will require remediation.

The scale of remediation demand is already generating market activity. Accessibility compliance vendors are expanding through acquisitions and investment to provide testing, remediation, and monitoring services. For example, AudioEye acquired ADA Site Compliance in a $7 million transaction designed to expand enterprise accessibility auditing and remediation capabilities.

These developments suggest growing institutional and vendor demand for services that address accessibility gaps in existing digital products.

Automated accessibility tools alone cannot resolve most accessibility issues. Industry experts estimate that automated scanning tools typically identify roughly half of accessibility failures in digital products.

Many accessibility issues require manual testing, expert evaluation, and redesign of interface components or user interaction patterns. Automated overlays and scanning widgets therefore cannot fully demonstrate regulatory compliance.

Vendors seeking to maintain institutional procurement eligibility must typically combine automated testing with manual accessibility review and engineering remediation.

Accessibility compliance is increasingly creating a structural divide in the software and edtech markets. Vendors that integrate accessibility engineering into product development can produce credible compliance evidence and pass institutional procurement filters.

Vendors that rely primarily on documentation or partial remediation face a different outcome. As procurement teams demand defensible accessibility evidence, products lacking credible compliance documentation risk exclusion from institutional buying cycles.

From a market perspective, accessibility compliance is evolving into a competitive qualification criterion. Vendors capable of demonstrating durable accessibility compliance are more likely to remain eligible for institutional software ecosystems, while others may gradually lose procurement access.

Higher Education Executive Intelligence is for strategy, product, and GTM leaders at vendors serving colleges, universities, and systems.

This is one of our six education and learning-related publications spanning K-12, Higher Education, and Workforce. Our education newsletters reach tens of thousands of senior decision-makers across the U.S. and key international markets.

Ping us if you’d like to learn more, explore Enterprise Subscriptions, or would like to partner in other ways.

The Intelligence Council is a next-gen B2B media and business intelligence platform built for people who make strategy, allocate capital, and carry operating risk.