BFSG: what Germany’s Accessibility Strengthening Act means for your website

The essentials at a glance

28 June 2025

In force. There is no transition period for websites or apps — the deadlines in § 38 BFSG cover existing products, pre-existing contracts and self-service terminals.

Five categories

§ 1 (3) BFSG lists the covered services exhaustively. For websites, number 5 is the one that matters: services provided in electronic commerce.

Up to €100,000

The maximum fine under § 37 (2) BFSG where a service is offered in breach of § 14 (1) BFSG. Intent or ordinary negligence is enough.

MLBF, Magdeburg

The joint market surveillance authority of the German states for accessibility of products and services — operating nationwide since 26 September 2025.

The framework is in the statute; enforcement practice is still young. No BFSG fines have been publicly documented so far. That does not make the obligation smaller — it only means nobody can honestly argue from case numbers.

What is the BFSG?

The Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSG), literally the Accessibility Strengthening Act, is Germany’s transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/882 — better known as the European Accessibility Act, or EAA. The official long title of the statute says exactly that. BFSG and EAA are therefore not two separate rulebooks, but a European directive and its German implementing act.

The BFSG governs scope, obligations and sanctions. The concrete technical requirements sit in the accompanying regulation, the BFSGV, which § 3 (2) BFSG authorises explicitly in line with the requirements of Annex I to Directive (EU) 2019/882. Both came into force on 28 June 2025.

Other EU member states have their own implementing laws with the same cut-off date. Substantively the requirements are harmonised through Annex I of the directive; competence, enforcement and penalty levels are national. If you sell into several markets, the technical core is the same, but the authorities you deal with are not.

Is there a transition period?

Not for websites and apps. § 1 (3) BFSG covers services provided to consumers after 28 June 2025 — a continuously provided service such as an online shop falls under it from the cut-off date onwards. The deadlines running to 27 June 2030 in § 38 BFSG concern something else: products lawfully used before the cut-off date and contracts concluded before it. Self-service terminals have their own period of up to 15 years.

Who does the BFSG apply to?

Not to “every website”, and not to “every B2C provider” either. § 1 (3) BFSG lists the covered services exhaustively — and only to the extent they are provided to consumers:

1. 01telecommunications services, excluding machine-to-machine transmission services
2. 02certain elements of air, bus, rail and waterborne passenger transport services: websites, mobile services and apps, electronic tickets, transport information and interactive self-service terminals
3. 03consumer banking services
4. 04e-books and dedicated software
5. 05services provided in electronic commerce

Number 5 is the category most websites fall into

§ 2 no. 26 BFSG defines it as digital services offered through websites and mobile apps that are provided electronically, at the individual request of a consumer, and with a view to concluding a consumer contract. Three elements must come together: offered via website or app, individual request by a consumer, and the aim of concluding a consumer contract.

What you sell is irrelevant. The Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit, the German federal agency for accessibility, states in its e-commerce FAQ that a service in electronic commerce exists even where the shop only sells goods that are not themselves covered by the BFSG. The obligation attaches to the sales process, not to the merchandise.

The microenterprise exemption

§ 3 (3) sentence 1 BFSG exempts microenterprises that offer or provide services. Under § 2 no. 17 BFSG, a microenterprise employs fewer than ten people and either has an annual turnover of no more than €2 million or a balance sheet total of no more than €2 million.

Both halves count, and the second one is an either/or: nine employees, €3 million turnover, but €1.5 million balance sheet total — microenterprise. Nine employees, €3 million turnover and €3 million balance sheet total — not a microenterprise. The exemption also applies to services only: microenterprises that manufacture, import or distribute products under § 1 (2) BFSG are fully covered.

Pure B2B: throughout § 1 (3) and § 2 no. 26 BFSG the statute is tied to the notion of a consumer. A cleanly separated B2B offering therefore does not fall under number 5. “Cleanly separated” is the weak point, though: a shop where consumers can in fact place orders is not a B2B offering, whatever the terms and conditions say. For mixed offerings, neither the statute nor the authority nor case law provides a criterion.

What does the website have to meet?

Neither the BFSG nor the BFSGV mentions WCAG or EN 301 549. § 12 no. 3 BFSGV requires websites, including associated online applications and mobile apps, to be designed in a consistent and adequate way that is perceivable, operable, understandable and robust — the four principles, without a version number and without a conformance level. § 3 BFSGV additionally requires the state of the art to be observed.

That changes little about the work and a lot about the wording. Meeting WCAG 2.1 levels A and AA hits the benchmark that assessment currently orients itself by. Turning that into a statutory presumption of conformity claims more than the legal position supports. For electronic commerce, § 19 BFSGV adds a further layer: identification, authentication, security and payment functions must likewise be perceivable, operable, understandable and robust.

The whole website, not just the checkout

The strongest argument for this is not in an FAQ but in the statute. Anlage 1 no. 2 BFSG — annex 1 — prescribes the sample the market surveillance authority has to inspect. It includes at least:

• home page, login, sitemap, contact, help pages and help functions, and pages carrying legal information
• at least one relevant page per type of service
• the page carrying the accessibility information under § 14 (1) no. 2 BFSG — so the statement itself is tested for accessibility
• pages with a markedly different appearance
• at least one relevant downloadable document per type of service
• further randomly selected pages and documents amounting to at least 10 percent

The Bundesfachstelle infers from § 12 no. 3 BFSGV and Anlage 1 no. 2 BFSG that the entire website or app has to meet the requirements; it expressly frames this as an inference, not as a finding. The statutory inspection scope points the same way: fixing only the ordering process will not survive that sample.

Documents are included in so far as they belong to the service; the technical requirements for them sit in clause 10 of EN 301 549. § 1 (4) BFSG does permanently exclude several things, though: office file formats and pre-recorded time-based media published before 28 June 2025, third-party content outside your own control, and archived content that is neither updated nor edited after the cut-off date.

The accessibility information

§ 14 (1) BFSG permits a service to be offered only on two conditions: the service meets the accessibility requirements (number 1) and the provider has produced the information set out in Anlage 3 no. 1 BFSG and made it publicly available in an accessible form (number 2). The second condition is easy to overlook — it carries the same penalty range as the first.

• a

  A general description of the service

  in an accessible format.

• b

  Descriptions and explanations

  needed to understand how the service is provided.

• c

  A description of how the requirements are met

  with reference to the relevant accessibility requirements of the BFSGV.

• d

  The competent market surveillance authority

  for private-sector providers this is the MLBF in Magdeburg.

The elements apply “where applicable”, and the information covers design and provision “where relevant for the assessment”. The legislator works with relevance filters rather than a fixed template. Anlage 3 no. 1 also expressly refers to the consumer information duties under Article 246 EGBGB, the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code: the Anlage 3 information sits alongside them, it does not replace them.

Where the information belongs

The statute names the general terms and conditions “or another clearly perceivable way”. There is no prescribed URL; /barrierefreiheit is convention, not obligation. The Bundesfachstelle recommends a link labelled “Barrierefreiheit” in the header or footer that leads to the page carrying the information. Under Anlage 1 no. 2 BFSG that page is a mandatory part of the authority’s inspection sample, so it has to be accessible itself.

The information must be retained for as long as the service is offered or provided (§ 14 (2) BFSG). There is no fixed update interval: § 14 (3) BFSG sets out a continuing obligation and requires changes to the way the service is provided, changed requirements and changed standards to be taken into account. The trigger is therefore any material change to the service. An annual review is a sensible habit, but not a legal requirement.

BFSG or BITV 2.0 — which applies to whom?

Briefly, because this gets confused a lot: the accessibility statement for public bodies (§ 12b BGG, § 7 BITV 2.0) and the information under Anlage 3 BFSG are two different documents on two different legal bases. Using a BITV template for a private company means writing in things the BFSG never asked for. Three differences are solidly documented:

The conciliation body is likewise not a mandatory entry under Anlage 3; what has to be named is the competent market surveillance authority. Publishing more than required does no harm — but a BITV statement does not substitute for the Anlage 3 information.

What happens if you do not comply?

§ 37 BFSG requires intent or negligence; ordinary negligence is enough, gross negligence is not required. The penalty range has two tiers:

That a missing accessibility statement falls into the €100,000 tier follows from the wording: § 37 (1) no. 8 refers to § 14 (1) as a whole, not only to its number 1. This is textual interpretation, not case law — the question has not been settled by any court.

How a procedure runs

The competent body is the Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder für die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen (MLBF), a public-law institution based in Magdeburg jointly run by the German states. It began work when the interstate treaty entered into force on 26 September 2025 and is responsible nationwide for private-sector providers; there is no split by federal state.

According to the Bundesfachstelle, services are monitored on a sampling basis. Where the authority finds a formal or substantive non-compliance, it first requires the company to bring the service into conformity. Only if that does not happen do measures follow — from a fine up to prohibiting the service, under §§ 28 to 31 BFSG. The order matters: request first, sanction second.

There is little solid information on enforcement practice: no BFSG fines have been publicly documented to date. Anyone arguing from case numbers is not citing an official source.

Consumers can force a procedure

§ 32 (1) BFSG is the provision most people underestimate: on application by a consumer, the market surveillance authority has to open a procedure where the consumer asserts a breach of the act or the BFSGV and states that they cannot use the service, or can use it only in a limited way. “Has to open” is a bound decision, not discretion. Recognised associations and qualified entities can file on the consumer’s behalf — or, under § 32 (2) BFSG, in their own right, without being affected themselves. The decision is issued as an administrative act, and the company must be given the opportunity to comment first.

Alongside this sits the conciliation procedure under § 34 BFSG before the conciliation body established by § 16 (1) BGG, which consumers as well as recognised associations may request. Where conciliation is under way, a procedure already opened under § 32 BFSG must be suspended until it ends.

What about competitor warning letters?

Honest answer: legally unresolved. A German Abmahnung, the cease-and-desist warning letter used in unfair competition law, rests on § 3a UWG and requires the breached BFSG provision to qualify as a market conduct rule. Whether the BFSG does has not been decided in any published judgment. Warning letters have been circulating in documented form since August 2025; whether they hold up is open. In any case, only competitors, qualified business associations, qualified entities and the chambers of commerce and crafts have standing under § 8 (3) UWG — not the general public.

A second and independent angle is § 5 UWG: advertising with a conformance badge or certificate that does not match actual accessibility risks being treated as misleading. That is the practical reason why an overlay widget sold with a compliance promise carries a double risk.

1. 01

   Establish whether you are covered

   Does your offering fall into one of the five categories in § 1 (3) BFSG? Does the interaction aim at a consumer contract? Are you a microenterprise under § 2 no. 17 BFSG? A reasoned no is also a result — write it down.

2. 02

   Measure the current state

   An automated scan reliably and quickly finds part of the problem: missing alternative text, insufficient contrast, unlabelled form fields, broken heading structure. Anything it cannot judge conclusively belongs flagged honestly as needing manual review.

3. 03

   Prioritise by impact

   Start with the paths people actually need and that the authority will inspect anyway: home page, navigation, forms, the ordering or booking flow, contact, legal pages.

4. 04

   Produce the Anlage 3 information

   The four elements, linked somewhere clearly perceivable, accessible themselves. And with the competent market surveillance authority named, which is the entry most often missing.

5. 05

   Document your decisions

   Record what you tested, what you fixed and what you deliberately deferred. If a request from the authority arrives, a documented history is half the answer.

6. 06

   Keep it that way

   § 14 (3) BFSG is a continuing obligation. Any deployment can break accessibility — measuring regularly beats cleaning up once.

Frequently asked questions about the BFSG

Primary sources

• § 1 BFSG — Anwendungsbereich
• § 2 BFSG — Begriffsbestimmungen
• § 3 BFSG — Allgemeine Anforderungen
• § 4 BFSG — Konformitätsvermutung
• § 14 BFSG — Pflichten der Dienstleistungserbringer
• § 32 BFSG — Antrag auf Einleitung eines Verfahrens
• § 37 BFSG — Bußgeldvorschriften
• § 38 BFSG — Übergangsbestimmungen
• Anlage 1 BFSG — Überwachung von Dienstleistungen
• Anlage 3 BFSG — Informationen zur Barrierefreiheit
• § 12 BFSGV — Anforderungen an Dienstleistungen

This page reproduces the statutory wording and publicly available statements of the Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit, as reviewed in July 2026. Where a question is unsettled, we say so. It is not legal advice — for an assessment of your specific offering, talk to a qualified lawyer.