You're probably facing tight product deadlines. And here I come and yell at you about accessibility and compliance.
Of course you're going to think about quick solutions to get rid of me. And third-party overlay tools can seem like that quick attractive solution. The companies behind these products promise quick deployment and instant compliance. It's often just a script snippet you have to insert in your page and users get instant controls for font sizes, contrast adjustments and text-to-speech features.
When you're on a limited budget on a legacy system with tight timelines, anything that promises all that with no extensive code refactoring seems like a winner.
And the appeal is clear. According to the Web Almanac in 2025, approximately 2% of websites currently use these tools. Companies are drawn by marketing claims of improved compliance and reduced legal risk.
But there's a catch.
I often think of that saying. Any solution can be quick, cheap and good. Just not all at the same time. You have to pick two of the three. I don't think overlays fit the two-out-of-three bill anyway.
However, I agree with the almanac's data and analysis. I mean, I would, wouldn't I, since I wrote it. But anyway, overlays don't fix code problems. They just change the website's presentation layer, sometimes making it worse than it was before. But they leave the structure intact. That means they leave the structural issues intact as well. Missing form labels, missing image descriptions, poor colour contrast.
What's more problematic though is that these overlays frequently mess up users’ own assistive technologies. In a survey done by WebAIM, they asked respondents how effective overlays are. 67% rated them as not at all effective or not really effective. 3.3% said they were "Very effective." I need to mention the survey was targeted at web accessibility practitioners, not users with disabilities. And 70.9% of the respondents reported no disability.
In any case, it made me wonder. If 3.3% thought overlays helped them, then they must be doing something right. So what could overlays get right? It's too bad the survey didn't dig into more details, so I can only guess.
And my guess is that for sighted users needing larger text, higher contrast or quick styling tweaks, overlays can make some content more usable. If, if the underlying HTML is at least partially functional! The rule is, as always, garbage in, garbage out.
So why do 2% of sites still use overlays?
I think I can make a more educated guess here. And it's because of at least these three reasons:
- Budget constraints and resource allocation. Full accessibility audits, code remediation and ongoing testing require significant investment in specialised expertise and development time. Overlays are a fraction of that cost.
- Legacy system limitations. Many teams use aging platforms and custom-built systems where architectural changes are extremely difficult, risky and technically infeasible without a complete rebuild. Overlays seem like a perfect solution for technical debt that they can't immediately address.
- Risk mitigation. Overlay companies often position their products as legal protection, with some even offering “compliance guarantees” or “lawsuit protection” as part of their service packages. If you're looking at imminent regulatory deadlines and need compliance fast or you get sued, reduced legal risk seems like a good thing.
And I can understand all these. I run up against excuses like these every day. And I'm not against any tool that helps teams ship accessible websites and helps users at the same time. But I look at anything that promises a silver bullet with skepticism. On the other hand, I look at anyone that says this is my way and it is the only way with the same amount of skepticism.
Maybe overlays can offer limited and short‑term improvements for some people. Maybe they can be a solution for resource‑constrained teams. Maybe they can act as a step to start engaging with accessibility properly.
Maybe.
One thing I know for sure though. No tool can replace accessible design, semantic HTML, proper interaction patterns, and continuous testing with users with disabilities.
And if you think having an overlay won't get you sued, look no further. Here's a quick list for you:
- Tribeca Skin Care vs. accessiBe (2024) is ongoing
- Bloomsybox vs. UserWay (2024) is ongoing
- Murphy vs. Eyebobs (2021) was settled with the company agreeing to achieve WCAG 2.1 compliance within two years, hire an accessibility consultant, form an internal accessibility team and provide staff training.
- LightHouse for the Blind vs. ADP (2021) was settled with the company ditching the overlay and agreeing to achieve “substantial compliance” with WCAG 2.1 in two years.
Courts consistently denied motions to dismiss, placing burden of proof on defendants to show accessibility.
In fact, 2024 saw that 25% of all web accessibility lawsuits explicitly cited overlay tools as barriers rather than solutions. And in 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. ordered accessiBe to pay $1 million fine for misrepresenting capabilities of the AI-powered tool, false advertising about making websites WCAG compliant and using undisclosed paid endorsements.
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?