This article was written by Attorney Yoav Kramer, Leading Partner in ABADI's Commercial and Corporate Law Department and Head of Accessibility Practice
Commercial and Corporate Law | International Commercial Law | Accessibility
Nearly every company in Israel is already familiar with the basic obligation: they ask the company's lawyer to draft an accessibility statement and then place it in the footer at the bottom of the website. At the same time, they appoint an accessibility coordinator and publish his contact details in case of complaints or inquiries in the field of accessibility. On the face of it, this legal box is marked as "in order." However, at the management and board level, the legal reality of 2026 shows that publishing a statement on paper and responding to inquiries on an ad-hoc basis are no longer sufficient to protect the organization from legal and regulatory exposure.
Adv. Yoav Kramer, a leading partner in the commercial department at ABADI & CO. law firm, with a unique specialization in disability accessibility law, explains why courts and regulators have stopped being impressed by forms, and how proactive corporate management turns legal risk into a competitive and operational advantage.
The Trap of Empty Declarations: Substance vs. Procedure
The modern legal approach both from courts in class-action lawsuits and from the Commission for Equal Rights of Persons with Disabilities has undergone a dramatic shift. Today the system examines substance over form. An accessibility statement is a necessary threshold condition, but it is not sufficient and in no way constitutes an insurance policy. If a customer files a complaint or lawsuit, and during the legal inquiry it turns out that behind the statement embedded on the website there is a systemic failure for example, that a newly acquired subsidiary never made the adjustments required by law, or that the company's financial reports are regularly uploaded to the website as scanned files that are inaccessible to visually impaired people using screen-reading software the mere existence of the "policy" will not protect the company. On the contrary, it may come across as a misleading declaration, with all that this implies.
Courts tend to be stricter with organizations that manage accessibility policy in "firefighting mode" meaning, responding only when a lawsuit or warning letter is received. In such a situation, the company is always on the defensive, forced to pay settlements sometimes in amounts higher than expected and loses control over its timelines and work plans.
Meet the Concept: Accessibility Governance
The most effective way to reduce legal exposure is to move responsibility for accessibility from marketing or IT to the company's governance, compliance, and risk management functions. In this way, corporate accessibility governance will require the creation of permanent internal mechanisms, for example:
- Periodic Audits and Gap Analysis: Proactive examinations and checks of the company's assets (digital and physical) to identify faults and gaps, and to ensure that the corporation is aware of gaps, if any exist, before the next plaintiff finds them.
- Vendor Compliance: In every contractual engagement, regardless of its financial scope, rigid accessibility clauses should be incorporated on one hand, and compensation and indemnification mechanisms on the other, even more so, with software vendors, website builders, designers, and related service providers. The company bears the legal responsibility toward users and customers, and therefore must ensure that its vendors provide it with accessible products and services that meet legal requirements.
- Targeted employee training: Accessibility is one of the cornerstones of a socially responsible corporation. Therefore, embedding accessibility into the organization's daily routine is essential. For example, a content manager needs to know how to upload an image to the website with alt text, and a customer service representative by phone or in person needs to know how to act if they receive an inquiry from a person with a disability.
Proactive Accessibility Governance
Companies that govern accessibility proactively hold two clear advantages, both legal and commercial, over "reactive" entities:
- Built-in protection in the courtroom: When a company can present a judge or regulator with a documented risk map, proactive audits, an organized annual remediation timeline, and documentation of employee training, it strengthens its ability to demonstrate "due diligence." We find that courts and regulators tend to reject motions to certify class actions or dramatically reduce financial penalties against companies and corporations that prove they are active and not passive — managing the matter seriously, substantively, and professionally, and not disregarding the law and/or legal requirements.
- Competitive advantage and brand reputation: Accessibility is no longer just a regulatory burden. Organizations that fully make their services and assets accessible open the door to a huge market segment in Israel and worldwide of people with disabilities and their families. Inaccessibility shuts out the general public, and that directly costs the corporation business potential. A brand that demonstrates genuine equality and corporate responsibility not only improves the customer experience for the public at large, but also strengthens its reputation among investors, business partners, and end customers.
Legal Disclaimer:
The information presented in this article is provided in summary form only, is intended for general informational purposes, and does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a substitute for obtaining professional advice tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. In any case involving a legal question or a need to make a decision with legal implications, qualified legal counsel should be sought.
