Explainer · Websites
Website accessibility: what the Disability Discrimination Act means for your site
How the Disability Discrimination Act applies to business websites, what WCAG 2.2 asks for, what happens if someone complains, and the checks to run first.
Most small business owners have never had an accessibility complaint about their website, and many have never heard the term outside a web developer’s quote. But Australian anti-discrimination law has applied to websites for more than 25 years, and the main technical standard for web accessibility was updated in 2023 and 2024. Here’s how it works, and where to start.
What the law says
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (the DDA) doesn’t mention websites. Section 24 says it is unlawful for a person who provides goods or services, “whether for payment or not”, to discriminate against someone on the ground of their disability, including by refusing to provide them, in the terms or conditions, or in the way they’re provided. The Act’s definition of services includes the services of any profession or trade, and services relating to entertainment, recreation or refreshment.
The Act also says it’s discrimination not to make reasonable adjustments for a person with disability where that leads to them being treated less favourably. An adjustment is reasonable unless it would impose an unjustifiable hardship.
The Act has no exemption based on business size.
The case that settled it for websites
In 1999, Bruce Maguire, who is blind and used a refreshable braille display, complained about the Sydney Olympics website. In its decision of 24 August 2000, the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission said: “The provision of information by the respondent via its web site is, in the Commission’s view, a service relating to the entertainment which the respondent will provide to the world in the course of the Sydney Olympic Games.” It found that service was covered by section 24.
It found the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games had breached the Act because images lacked text alternatives, the index of sports couldn’t be reached from the schedule page, and results tables were inaccessible. The committee argued that making the results tables accessible would impose unjustifiable hardship, and the Commission rejected that. The W3C’s case study records that $20,000 in damages was later ordered.
That’s a large organisation and a quarter of a century ago. But the principle, that a website is part of the service a business provides, is the one that applies to a clinic’s booking page or a tradie’s quote form today.
What standard to aim for
The DDA doesn’t name a technical standard; the W3C’s summary of Australian law lists its WCAG version as “None”. In practice, the reference is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), published by the W3C.
The Australian Human Rights Commission, which handles DDA complaints, has published Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services under the Act. The W3C’s summary describes them: “All organisations should aim to avoid discrimination by providing equal access to digital goods and services to everyone.” On our reading, they’re guidance on how to meet the law, not a law in themselves.
WCAG 2.2 is the current version, first published in October 2023 and republished in December 2024. It has three levels: A (lowest), AA and AAA (highest). To meet Level AA, a page must satisfy every Level A and Level AA success criterion. The W3C advises using WCAG 2.2, and its accessibility guidelines working group recommends sites adopt it as their conformance target “even if formal obligations mention previous versions”. The federal government’s own Digital Experience Policy uses WCAG 2.2, according to the W3C.
WCAG 2.2 added criteria that matter on small business sites, including:
- Target size (AA): buttons and links at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with exceptions.
- Focus not obscured (AA): when someone moves through a page with the keyboard, the highlighted item mustn’t be completely hidden by content such as a sticky header or cookie banner.
- Accessible authentication (AA): a login step can’t require a cognitive function test, such as remembering a password or solving a puzzle, unless there’s another way to log in or help such as allowing password managers or copy and paste.
- Consistent help and redundant entry (A): help options repeated across pages appear in the same relative order, and people aren’t made to re-enter information they’ve already given in the same process, with exceptions.
What “unjustifiable hardship” means
Under section 29A, the goods and services rule doesn’t make something unlawful if avoiding the discrimination would impose unjustifiable hardship. Section 11 says all relevant circumstances must be considered, including the benefit or detriment to anyone concerned, the effect of the person’s disability, the business’s financial circumstances and the estimated cost, and any help available. The burden of proving it lies with the business claiming it.
On our reading, that makes it a defence to argue case by case, not a blanket exemption for small businesses.
What happens if someone complains
Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, a person aggrieved can lodge a written complaint with the Commission. Its President inquires into the complaint and tries to conciliate it, and may end a complaint lodged more than 24 months after the conduct. If a complaint is terminated, the person can apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court, in some cases only with the court’s leave, within 60 days of the termination notice or longer if the court allows. The court can order remedies including damages.
Where to start
The W3C’s Easy Checks are a first review anyone can run in a browser: image text alternatives, page titles, headings, colour contrast, skip links, visible keyboard focus, page language, zoom, captions, transcripts and audio description for video, and form labels and required fields. The W3C warns that a page could seem to pass these checks yet still have significant barriers, so treat them as a starting point rather than an audit.
If your site uses a developer, ask them to test it against WCAG 2.2 Level AA. If you’re weighing up a rebuild anyway, add accessibility to the brief. Our guide to whether to fix or rebuild your website covers how to decide.
Checklist
- Run the W3C Easy Checks on your home page and main enquiry page. Note each failure, including image text alternatives, colour contrast and form labels.
- Tab through your booking or quote form using only the keyboard. Check you can see every field and button as it’s highlighted, and that a sticky header or cookie banner doesn’t hide it.
- Check button and link sizes on your phone. WCAG 2.2 Level AA asks for targets of at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with exceptions.
- Add captions, transcripts or audio description to your videos. These are among the W3C Easy Checks for audio and video.
- Ask your web developer to test against WCAG 2.2 Level AA. Ask for the failures in writing so you can prioritise fixes.
- Put WCAG 2.2 Level AA in the brief for any new site or redesign. Make it part of what you’re paying for, not an extra later.
Tick items as you go. Your ticks stay in this browser.
Sources 8 sources
- Federal Register of Legislation: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Compilation No. 40, 1 July 2026)
- Federal Register of Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Compilation No. 57)
- W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2, W3C Recommendation (12 December 2024)
- W3C WAI: Easy Checks – A First Review of Web Accessibility (updated 21 March 2024)
- W3C WAI: Web Accessibility Laws & Policies – Australia (updated 22 July 2025)
- Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, H 99/115, 24 August 2000 (reproduced by the Independent Living Institute)
- W3C WAI: A Cautionary Tale of Inaccessibility – Sydney Olympics Website (archived case study)
- Australian Human Rights Commission: Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services