What the rule does not say

Read the text closely

Several claims circulate about the 2024 DOJ rule that are not in the rule's text. Some are exaggerations of what the rule requires; others are limitations the rule does not impose; a few are confusions with other accessibility frameworks. Distinguishing what the rule actually says from what people assume it says is part of a defensible compliance posture.

Not perfection on day one

The rule does not require literal-perfect WCAG 2.1 AA conformance on every document and every page at the deadline. 28 CFR § 35.203 explicitly addresses minor nonconformance: content that has small, non-substantive failures that do not substantially affect a user's ability to use the content does not by itself constitute a violation (Source: 28 CFR § 35.203 ) .

What the rule does require is substantial conformance and a defensible compliance posture. An entity with a documented inventory, a prioritized remediation queue, and visible progress is in a different position from an entity with no plan and the same conformance rate. The substantial-conformance standard and the minor-nonconformance allowance work together; neither is a blanket escape clause.

Vendors sometimes overstate the minor-nonconformance allowance as a much wider safe harbor than the rule provides. A page or document with substantive accessibility failures (no alt text on meaningful images, no logical heading structure, no keyboard navigation, scrambled reading order on PDFs) is not in conformance, regardless of how the failures are characterized.

Not a rule for private businesses

The 2024 DOJ rule amends Title II of the ADA, which governs state and local government entities. The rule does not apply to private businesses. Private businesses are governed by Title III of the ADA, which is a separate part of the statute with its own enforcement regime and its own evolving case law on digital accessibility.

Private businesses face accessibility litigation under Title III at a much higher volume than public entities face Title II litigation (per Seyfarth Shaw, 8,667 federal ADA accessibility suits in 2025, largely Title III). The legal theories are related, but the regulatory framework is different. The 2024 DOJ rule is not the operative document for a private business.

Not a new private right of action

The 2024 rule did not create a new private right of action for web accessibility under Title II. The underlying statute (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) provides for private enforcement; the rule does not add to it.

Practical effect: a private plaintiff sues under the statute, not under the rule. The rule's WCAG 2.1 AA technical standard informs the analysis of whether the statute's nondiscrimination obligation was met, but the cause of action exists in the statute. This is why the 2024 rule's exceptions, even when correctly applied, do not defeat a private claim: the plaintiff is not suing under the rule. See Why an exception does not mean no ADA risk.

Not a mandate for any specific technology, platform, or CMS

The rule mandates conformance to WCAG 2.1 Level AA. It does not mandate:

• A specific content management system
• A specific document remediation tool or platform
• A specific accessibility scanning service
• A specific authoring workflow
• A specific PDF generation tool
• A specific testing methodology

Vendors sometimes market products as "ADA Title II compliant" or "required for the 2024 rule." No product is required for the rule. WCAG 2.1 AA can be achieved with a wide range of tools and workflows. The rule is platform-neutral and tool-neutral.

The corollary: a vendor's certification or accessibility-conformance claim does not by itself produce compliance. The entity's actual digital content has to meet the standard. Vendor tooling is one input; entity practice and content are the substance.

Assumptions vs. actual rule text

A useful exercise when evaluating a claim about the rule is to ask: where in the text of 28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H does this appear? Several common claims do not appear there:

• "The rule requires you to remediate every PDF by the deadline." Not the text. The rule requires WCAG 2.1 AA conformance for in-scope content, subject to exceptions and the minor-nonconformance allowance.
• "The rule exempts internal documents." Not the text. Coverage is based on whether the entity provides or makes the content available, not on whether it is public-facing.
• "The rule lets you provide alternative accessible versions on request." Not the text. The 2024 rule moves away from accommodation-on-request and toward baseline conformance of published content.
• "The rule grandfathers all pre-2024 documents." Not the text. The "preexisting electronic documents" exception in § 35.202 is narrower than "everything that already exists." See Preexisting electronic documents.
• "The rule requires you to use a specific vendor's product." Not the text. The rule is technology-neutral.