For many organizations, the April 24, 2026, deadline around ADA Title II has raised an important question: Is this a new requirement, or something that’s been in place all along?

The answer is straightforward: Accessibility under ADA Title II is not new. What’s new is clarity.

In 2024, the Department of Justice issued a final rule that formally defines how ADA Title II applies to websites, mobile apps, and digital content. For the first time, public entities now have a clear technical standard and a firm deadline.

This post breaks down:

• What existed before
• What the new rule clarifies
• Who is affected (and when)
• How this impacts captions, video, and accessibility moving forward

What ADA Title II Already Requires

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II, state and local governments have long been required to provide equal access to their programs, services, and activities, along with effective communication for individuals with disabilities.

In practice, this has always applied to core public functions like meetings, educational programs, and government services. As digital communication became central to how these services are delivered, enforcement made it increasingly clear that the same expectations extended to websites, online video, and other digital materials.

Accessibility in digital environments wasn’t new; it was a continuation of an existing requirement.

What the 2024 Rule Clarifies

The DOJ’s 2024 update does not change the core obligation. It defines it.

For the first time, public entities now have:

• A clearly defined scope (websites, apps, and digital content)
• A specific technical standard (WCAG 2.1 Level AA)
• A firm compliance timeline

Why Clarification Was Needed

While the requirement itself was well established, how to meet it was not.

There was no officially defined technical standard, no universal deadline, and no consistent enforcement model. As a result, organizations relied on interpretation, guidance, and precedent to determine what “accessible” meant in practice.

Much of that guidance came through enforcement and legal action. The Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights investigated complaints and entered into resolution agreements, while high-profile cases helped shape expectations. The University of California, Berkeley case required the removal or remediation of inaccessible online video content, and lawsuits involving Harvard and MIT reinforced expectations around captioning and digital access.

These cases made one thing clear: Accessibility was required, but organizations didn’t have a consistent, measurable way to implement it.

ADA Title II: Before vs. Now

Category	Previously (Before 2024 Rule)	Now (2024 Rule – Effective 2026/2027)
Legal Requirement	Accessibility required under ADA Title II	Accessibility still required
Digital Coverage	Implied through interpretation and case law	Explicitly includes websites, apps, and digital content
Technical Standard	Not formally defined	WCAG 2.1 Level AA required
Enforcement Style	Complaint-driven (OCR, lawsuits)	Proactive and enforceable
Deadlines	No universal deadline	April 2026 / April 2027
Captioning Expectation	Required under “effective communication”	Clearly required under WCAG
Consistency	Varied by organization	Standardized across public entities

What the Rule Says About Captions

One of the most immediate impacts of the rule is clarity around captions.

Under WCAG 2.1 Level AA:

• Prerecorded video must include captions
• Live video must include real-time captions

This aligns with how accessibility has already been enforced, but now it is explicitly defined and expected. Just as important, the standard is not simply whether captions exist, it’s whether they are effective.

WCAG does not define a specific accuracy percentage. Instead, it requires that captions present the full meaning of the content, including spoken dialogue and relevant non-speech elements, in a way that is properly synchronized and easy to follow. This is reinforced by ADA Title II’s broader requirement for effective communication: Captions must allow a viewer to fully understand the message—not just approximate it.

In practice, that means:

• Errors that change meaning can create compliance risk
• Missing speakers or key context can make captions insufficient
• Captions must be timed correctly and appear in sync with the audio
• Delays or poor timing can reduce usability and comprehension

With that in mind, it’s important to understand how different captioning approaches align with these expectations. There are two primary approaches used today: automated captioning powered by AI (ASR) and human captioning performed by trained writers.

In practice, the right choice comes down to context. ASR can be effective in controlled environments with clear audio and lower risk, offering a scalable and cost-efficient solution. Human captioning is better suited for high-stakes, complex, or public-facing content where accuracy, speaker identification, and reliability are critical.

The goal isn’t choosing a method—it’s ensuring the message is fully understood.

The “Older Content” Exception

The rule includes a limited exception for content created before April 24, 2026, but it’s narrower than many expect.

Older content can remain as-is only if it is truly archival. That means it is not actively used, not updated, and not part of any current program, service, or activity.

Where this gets important is how “use” is defined. If older content is still being used in any meaningful way, it must be made accessible—even if it was created years ago.

Common scenarios where older content must be updated

• Training and education
  A recorded lecture from 2022 reused in a 2026 course must be captioned.
• Ongoing programs or services
  A webinar library that users are encouraged to access is considered active content.
• Linked or referenced materials
  An older video linked on a current webpage is no longer “archived.”
• Frequently accessed resources
  If users regularly rely on it, it’s part of your current service.

When content may remain exempt

Content may qualify for the exception if it is:

• Stored for recordkeeping or historical reference
• Not linked from current pages
• Not used in training, services, or public engagement
• Left unchanged and not maintained

The practical way to think about it: If your audience is expected to use it, it must be accessible. The exception isn’t based on age; it’s based on relevance and use.

What About Language Requirements?

The rule does not require translation. There is no percentage threshold that triggers multilingual content, no requirement to offer multiple languages, and no rule that content in one language must be mirrored in another.

What the rule does require is consistency: Any language you provide must be accessible.

If an organization offers content in Spanish, that version must be accessible in Spanish. If content is delivered in English, it must be accessible in English.

For example, a Spanish video would need Spanish captions, and an English livestream would need real-time English captions.

Language access itself is governed by other regulations. ADA Title II focuses specifically on accessibility for people with disabilities, ensuring that whatever content is provided can be fully understood.

Who Needs to Comply, and When?

The rule applies to public entities under ADA Title II, including state and local governments, public universities, school systems, and municipal agencies.

The timeline is based on population size:

April 24, 2026

Applies to public entities serving 50,000+ people, such as:

• Large cities and counties
• State agencies
• Major public universities
• Large transit systems

April 26, 2027

Applies to entities serving under 50,000 people, including:

• Smaller towns and municipalities
• Rural counties
• Smaller local agencies

The requirement is the same for both groups—only the timeline differs.

What About Churches and Private Organizations?

Churches are not considered public entities under ADA Title II and are generally exempt from ADA Title III as well. This means they are not legally required to meet WCAG standards.

However, many churches are still adopting accessibility tools like captions and translation—not because they are required to, but because they recognize the value. Accessibility improves understanding, supports multilingual communities, and helps remove barriers for first-time visitors.

Accessibility in this context isn’t about compliance. It’s about connection.

Final Takeaway

ADA Title II has required accessibility for decades. The 2024 rule does not introduce a new obligation—it provides a clear, consistent framework for meeting one that already existed.

For public entities, that means:

• A defined standard (WCAG 2.1 AA)
• A clear timeline (2026 / 2027)
• And a shift toward building accessibility into digital content from the start

Accessibility has always been about ensuring people can fully receive the message. Now, there is a clear path for how to deliver it.

On July 18, 2024, the FCC released Report and Order (FCC 24-79) which implements a “readily accessible” requirement for closed captioning display settings on various video devices, allowing users to customize font size, type, color, position, opacity, and background to enhance readability and viewing preferences. This Order addresses the difficulties many users, particularly those who are deaf or hard of hearing, face due to complex navigation, inconsistent device interfaces, limited customization options, and inadequate support. This initiative responds to widespread complaints about the accessibility challenges of closed captioning.

There will be four elements to consider in deciding whether or not these display settings are "readily accessible”, which manufacturers of covered apparatus and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) will need to comply with in this Order. These four elements include: proximity, ensuring settings are easy to navigate to; discoverability, making them straightforward to find; previewability, allowing users to see changes in real-time; and consistency/persistence, maintaining user settings across devices and sessions.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez stated, "Ensuring that those who are deaf and hard of hearing can locate and adjust closed caption settings is essential to their being able to meaningfully access and enjoy video programming. While this is a milestone to be proud of, as technology continues to advance, it is crucial that manufacturers prioritize the inclusion of accessibility features into product development from the beginning. Accessibility by design."

The discussions and rulings on these matters emphasize the FCC's commitment to improving accessibility in communications technologies, ensuring that closed captioning features are more user-friendly and customizable. Hopefully, these changes will be implemented sooner rather than later, so more people can enjoy the benefits of closed captions.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) issued a Public Notice to remind Emergency Alert System (EAS) participants of their obligation to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to persons with disabilities.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the FCC, will conduct a nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) test on October 4, 2023.

The Public Notice also reminded EAS Participants that they must file ETRS Form Two after the nationwide EAS test no later than October 5, 2023, and they must file ETRS Form Three on or before Nov. 20, 2023. For TV stations, to be visually accessible, EAS texts must be displayed as follows (as it relates to closed captioning):

“At the top of the television screen or where it will not interfere with other visual messages (e.g., closed captioning),” and “without overlapping lines or extending beyond the viewable display (except for video crawls that intentionally scroll on and off the screen)…”

This is in addition to another FCC Public Notice which states:

“Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Emergency information provided in the audio portion of programming also must be accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing through closed captioning or other methods of visual presentation, including open captioning, crawls or scrolls that appear on the screen. Visual presentation of emergency information may not block any closed captioning, and closed captioning may not block any emergency information provided by crawls, scrolls, or other visual means.”

As EAS alerts are expected to be more common in the future, this is something that we in the captioning industry will be prepared for and do our part to make it better for viewers.

On June 8, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, aiming to further ensure accessibility for all individuals in video conferencing services. The action establishes that under Section 716 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), video conferencing platforms commonly used for work, school, healthcare, and other purposes, fall under the definition of "interoperable video conferencing service."

Under Section 716 of the CVAA, Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and equipment manufacturers are required to make their services and equipment accessible to individuals with disabilities, unless achieving accessibility is not feasible. ACS includes interoperable video conferencing services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and BlueJeans. The FCC previously left the interpretation of "interoperable" open, but in this latest report, it adopted the statutory definition without modification, encompassing services that provide real-time video communication to enable users to share information.

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC seeks public comments on performance objectives for interoperable video conferencing services, including requirements for accurate and synchronous captions, text-to-speech functionality, and effective video connections for sign language interpreters.

The FCC's actions on this item are an important step toward ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to video conferencing services. The Report & Order will help to make video conferencing more accessible and promote greater inclusion and participation of people with disabilities.

On October 11, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the latest CVAA biennial report to Congress, evaluating the current industry compliance as it pertains to Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Communications Act of 1934. The biennial report is required by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), which amended the Communications Act of 1934 to include updated requirements for ensuring the accessibility of "modern" telecommunications to people with disabilities.

FCC rules under Section 255 of the Communications Act require telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities. If such access is not readily achievable, manufacturers and service providers must make their devices and services compatible with third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or consumer premises equipment commonly used by people with disabilities.

Accessibility Barriers

Despite major design improvements over the past two years, the report reveals that accessibility gaps still persist and that industry commenters are most concerned about equal access on video conferencing platforms. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of accessible video conferencing services for people with disabilities.

Zoom, BlueJeans, FaceTime, and Microsoft Teams have introduced a variety of accessibility feature enhancements, including screenreader support, customizable chat features, multi-pinning features, and “spotlighting” so that all participants know who is speaking. However, commentators have expressed concern over screen share and chat feature compatibility with screenreaders along with the platforms’ synchronous automatic captioning features.

Although many video conferencing platforms now offer meeting organizers synchronous automatic captioning to accommodate deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy (DHH CAO) pointed out that automated captioning sometimes produces incomplete or delayed transcriptions and even if slight delays of live captions cannot be avoided, these captioning delays may cause “cognitive overload.” Comprehension can be further hindered if a person who is deaf or hard of hearing cannot see the faces of speaking participants, for “people with hearing loss rely more on nonverbal information than their peers, and if a person misses a visual cue, they may fall behind in the conversation.”

Automated vs. Human-generated Captions

At present, the automated captioning features on these conference platforms have an error rate of 5-10%. That’s 5-10 errors per 100 words spoken and when the average conversation rate of an English speaker is 150 words per minute, you’re looking at the possibility of over a dozen errors a minute.

Earlier this year, our team put Adobe’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered speech-to-text engine to the test. We tasked our most experienced Caption Editor with using Adobe’s auto-generated transcript to create & edit the captions to meet the quality standards of the FCC and the deaf and hard of hearing community on two types of video clips: a single-speaker program and one with multiple speakers.

How did it go? Take a look: Human-generated Captions vs. Adobe Speech-to-text

In the history of our planet, littering is a relatively new problem. It was around the 1950s when manufacturers began producing a higher volume of litter-creating material, such as disposable products and packaging made with plastic. Much like the boom of manufacturers creating more disposable packaging, new video content is being pushed out to streaming platforms in incredible volumes every day.

Along with all this new video content, there are noticeable similarities between littering and a prevalent problem in our industry: inaccessible media – specifically poor captioning quality. Instead of it being food wrappers, water bottles, plastic bags, or cigarette butts, it’s misspellings, lack of punctuation, missing words, or the wrong reading rate (words-per-minute on the screen) that affects readability.

The motives behind littering and choosing poor-quality captioning are similar and it generally boils down to one of the following reasons: laziness or carelessness, lenient law enforcement, and/or presence of litter already in the area. Both are very selfish acts, allowing one person to take the easy route by just discarding their trash wherever they please, or in the case of captioning, choosing the quickest & cheapest option available to fulfill a request without any regard to the quality. When it comes to organizations enforcing the guidelines and standards, if their efforts are relaxed, it will encourage a lot of people to not follow them. And the presence of other content creators getting away with inaccessible media will, no doubt, encourage others to take the same route.

In The Big Hack’s survey of over 3,000 disabled viewers, four in five disabled people experience accessibility issues with video-on-demand services. “66% of users feel either frustrated, let down, excluded or upset by inaccessible entertainment.” In fact, “20% of disabled people have canceled a streaming service subscription because of accessibility issues.” It’s clear: inaccessible media is polluting video content libraries.

Viewers that do not utilize closed captions may not always think about how poor-quality captions affect the users that do, just like the consequences of littering on the community and animals that all share the Earth’s ecosystem are often overlooked. Education and awareness are important tools in reducing the problem. If we allow it to become commonplace, much like litter, bad captioning will wash away into the “ocean” of online video content and become permanent pollution our video “eco-system.”

So, what can we do about it before it’s too late? Much like with littering, we can start with community cleanups. Let the content creators know that you value captioning and would enjoy their content more if captions were present and accurately represent the program to all viewers. Find their websites and social media pages and contact them – make them aware. And if it’s on broadcast television, let the FCC know.

Clean communities have a better chance of attracting new business, residents, and tourists – the same will go for the online video community. Quality captioning is your choice and, for the sake of the video community, please evaluate the quality of work done by the captioning vendors that you’re considering and don’t always just go for the cheapest and quickest option. Help keep the video community clean.

There’s a growing trend on social media and sites like Reddit and Quora to showcase captioning errors from television and numerous online platforms. As accessibility laws tighten and the quality standards for captioning on broadcasts become more rigorous, how do these bloggers have so much fuel for their posts on captioning errors? It is a simple question with many complicated answers.

Live television programming is captioned in real-time either by machines or humans working with a stenotype machine (like those used in courtrooms) and thus tends to lag slightly behind and, inevitably, will include some paraphrasing and errors. While the Federal Communication Commission requires American television stations' post-production captions to meet certain standards, the Internet is still vastly unregulated. Video-sharing websites like YouTube have struggled to provide accessible captions. Despite YouTube's recent efforts to improve accessibility, their captions continue to disappoint viewers, especially those of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community.

In a 2014 The Atlantic article called "The Sorry State of Closed Captioning," Tammy H. Nam explains why machines cannot create the same experience humans can.  She posits, "Machine translation is responsible for much of today’s closed-captioning and subtitling of broadcast and online streaming video. It can’t register sarcasm, context, or word emphasis." By using machines instead of human writers and editors, sites like YouTube are not providing the same viewing experience to the deaf and hard of hearing as they are to their other patrons. Humans can understand which homophone to use based on context. There is an enormous difference between the words soar and sore, air and heir, suite and sweet. Humans can also determine when noise is important to the plot of a story and thereby include it in the captions so that a non-hearing viewer won't miss critical details. In the same Atlantic article, deaf actress Marlee Matlin says, "I rely on closed captioning to tell me the entire story…I constantly spot mistakes in the closed captions. Words are missing or something just doesn’t make sense." Accessible closed captions should follow along exactly with the spoken dialogue and important sounds so that viewers are immersed in the story. Having to decipher poor captions takes the viewer out of the flow of the story and creates a frustrating experience.

YouTube created its own auto caption software for its creators to use in 2010. The software is known for its incomprehensible captions. Deaf YouTuber and activist Rikki Poynter made a video in 2015 highlighting the various ways in which YouTube's automatic captions are inaccessible. She wrote a 2018 blog post explaining her experience with the software, "Most of the words were incorrect. There was no grammar. (For the record, I’m no expert when it comes to grammar, but the lack of punctuation and capitalization sure was something.) Everything was essentially one long run-on sentence. Captions would stack up on each other and move at a slow pace." For years, Rikki and other deaf and hard-of-hearing YouTube users had to watch videos with barely any of the audio accurately conveyed. Although her blog post highlights the ways in which YouTube's automatic captions have improved since 2015, she writes, "With all of that said, do I think that we should choose to use only automatic captions? No, I don’t suggest that. I will always suggest manually written or edited captions because they will be the most accurate. Automatic captions are not 100% accessible and that is what captions should be." The keyword is accessible. When captions do not accurately reflect spoken words in videos, television shows, and movies, the stories and information are inaccessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. Missing words, incorrect words, poor timing, captions covering subtitles, or other important graphics all take the viewer out of the experience or leave out critical information to fully understand and engage with the content. Until web resources like YouTube take their deaf and hard-of-hearing viewer's complaints seriously, they will continue to alienate them.

So, what can we do about poor web-closed captioning? Fortunately, the Internet is also an amazing tool that allows consumers and users to have a voice in the way they experience web content. Deaf and hard-of-hearing activists like Marlee Matlin, Rikki Poynter, and Sam Wildman have been using their online platforms to improve web-closed captions. Follow in their footsteps and use the voice that the web gives you. Make a YouTube video like Rikki Poynter or write a blog post like Sam Wildman's post, "An Open Letter to Netflix Re: Subtitles." 

The Internet is a powerful platform in which large companies like Google can hear directly from their consumers. If you would like to see the quality of closed captions on the web improve, use your voice. Otherwise, you'll continue to see memes like this one...

At a meeting on September 19^th, 2017, the Rochester City Council (New York) approved a new city ordinance that will now require its local businesses to enable the closed captioning feature on televisions displayed to the public. Rochester will join only a few other U.S. cities, such as Portland, Oregon, that require all city businesses to provide this service to their patrons.Read

Over the past couple of years – and after several lawsuits filed against a few Ivy League schools – a growing number of universities are working toward accessibility compliance with their online video courses. Initially, the process can be overwhelming and take up a lot of resources. One university even resorted to removing its public library of 20,000 free educational videos because of a complaint filed by the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, because accessibility requirements are often met by a big-bad lawsuit when standards are not met, the whole process gets a negative designation right from the get-go.

Where to Begin

It appears that the initial obstacle for universities is a lack of appropriate education on both the requirements and the benefits of closed captioning. Often, universities do not take the proper initiative in allocating suitable funding or appropriately equipping the classrooms until the school is approached by an organization advocating for accessibility rights – at which time the need to comply becomes a time-crunched burden with a possible lawsuit attached.

It’s important to know that public and private educational institutions must provide equal access for students with disabilities in agreement with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as detailed in Title II (publicly-funded universities & vocational schools) and Title III (privately funded). Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also ensure equal accessibility in any system of higher education that receives federal funding.

Beyond ensuring equal accessibility to all students, closed captioning is used as an effective learning tool by a significant percentage of students who do not self-identify as having difficulty with hearing. The availability of lecture and video transcripts helps students review and retain information outside of the classroom. It also aids students with learning disabilities, as well as ESL students.

Breaking Down the Roadblocks

Universities should not be overwhelmed by the thought of having to equip classrooms with an array of expensive technologies. The closed captioning process is simple. As long as clear audio can be transferred via the internet or a phone line, real-time captioners can write remotely to a variety of web platforms across multiple devices already available to students – devices such as mobile phones or laptops.

Furthermore, the educational value and benefits of closed captioning are often overlooked when it’s perceived as economically burdensome. Captioning is not only for the deaf and hard of hearing. Recognizing the value of captioning as a successful tool for all students should motivate all administrators to provide captioning on all their online courses.

Amidst the growing number of accessibility discrimination lawsuits being filed against US movie theater chains, the Department of Justice announced yesterday that a Final Rule of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III will soon be published to enforce a nationally consistent standard. This rulemaking will provide specific requirements that cinemas must now meet to satisfy their equal access obligations to patrons with hearing and vision disabilities.

For screenings of features produced with closed captioning, movie theaters will now be required to provide caption display devices, such as Sony’s Access Glasses or Dolby’s CaptiView, to patrons who request them. The law will also require these theaters to provide assistive listening devices for any film produced with an audio description track, which contains a personal narration throughout the film.Read