CAI Policy Insights: Upcoming ADA Deadline is Just the Start
Title II rule prompts proactive approach to creating accessible online courses and materials
As of April 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice has extended the compliance date that applies to U-M to April 26, 2027. The work to meet the ADA Title II requirements continues, and more information can be found on the university’s Digital Accessibility website.
Welcome to CAI Policy Insights, a periodic policy digest covering the latest legal and policy updates impacting online and hybrid learning and the use of educational technologies. By staying up to date on news and emerging controversies in these areas, we believe faculty, administrators, learning experience designers, and academic leaders can all make more informed decisions regarding program development, technology integrations, student engagement and assessment strategies, and more. Topic-by-topic breakdowns of key regulatory issues can also be found on the Online Teaching Compliance Page.
Summary and Insights
In April 2024, the US Department of Justice finalized a new regulation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that establishes technical standards for web and mobile accessibility for state and local government entities, including public universities. Under this new rule, with very few exceptions, large public universities like the University of Michigan must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 24, 2026, with smaller institutions having until April 2027.
These technical standards extend beyond websites themselves. All digital assets, including online course materials, learning management systems, documents, social media posts, and other educational technologies used in academic programs must conform to these standards.
For institutions delivering online or hybrid programming, it is imperative to proactively embed digital accessibility processes into day-to-day operations, ensuring courses are accessible by design, even after the conformance deadline has passed.
Feature Policy Updates: Digital Accessibility
DOJ Title II Rule: WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the enforceable “floor” for access
DOJ’s April 2024 final rule adds Subpart H to Title II and requires public entities’ web content and mobile apps to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, including content provided through contractual arrangements (e.g., vendors).
Why this matters: The scope of the rule goes beyond a website. It covers course content, including password-protected learning management systems, PDFs, and videos. This is a shift from a reactive to a proactive approach, ultimately reducing the burden for learners participating in online and hybrid learning.
Public entities have to comply with the rule based on the population size of the area they serve. The compliance deadline is April 24, 2026 for entities that serve a population greater than 50,000 and April 26, 2027 for entities serving smaller populations.
Don’t rely on the DOJ adjusting the Title II rule to make it less costly
The federal regulator agenda indicates the DOJ may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking to reconsider some provisions of the 2024 rule, specifically looking at certain regulatory provisions to be “made less costly” for public entities. There are no concrete details on what this could mean, specifically.
Why this matters: Some policy observers have reported that the DOJ has submitted a possible “interim final rule”, which could modify part of the rule without going through a full notice and comment period. But, to date, no details of any changes have been made, and no revision has been finalized. Therefore, the existing regulation remains fully in effect, and the WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard and deadline remain and institutions should continue working towards full conformance.
Enforcement for educational technology isn’t new
It is important to remember that prior to the Title II updates, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) maintained that Section 504 and Title II require “…educational institutions to provide equal access for individuals with disabilities to all educational benefits and opportunities that are provided online or in other digital formats.” OCR maintains a Disability Discrimination: Technology Accessibility site that includes higher education cases involving inaccessible learning management systems and online course materials, with links to resolution letters and agreements, all dated prior to April 2026.
Why this matters: There is a misconception that the requirement to ensure digital content is accessible was new as of April 2024 when, in fact, this requirement has been around much longer. The only difference is that now there are technical standards to adhere to, making compliance in this area clearer.
Key Takeaways
- The April 24, 2026 deadline for meeting technical standards for digital accessibility is here, but public institutions have long been required to provide accessible programming for students with disabilities, which has included digital services and websites.
- The ADA Title II accessibility rule shifts digital accessibility from a reactive to a proactive approach, reducing the burden for learners participating in online and hybrid learning by having all assets accessible from the start.
- Any potential updates or changes to ADA Title II requirements do not negate the long-standing obligation for access to digital assets.
Other Developments Worth Monitoring
Other major policy developments impacting digital learning are outlined briefly below.
- Federal layoffs at ED could have downstream effects on students with disabilities in higher education. Cuts to staffing at ED raise concerns about weakened oversight, less guidance for institutions, and fewer federal touchpoints for students with disabilities navigating higher education. This would not change institutions’ legal obligations, rather it could reduce the amount of federal interpretation and technical assistance universities rely on.
- Federal lawsuit targets accessibility barriers in West Virginia University online program. In 2025, the National Federation of the Blind and two blind graduate students filed a federal lawsuit against West Virginia University, alleging that inaccessible course materials (e.g., improperly tagged digital textbooks), inaccessible learning platforms, barriers to field placements, and inadequate support prevented them from fully participating in the university’s online Master of Social Work program.
- Generative AI works cannot be copyrighted. The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear a case challenging the human authorship requirement in copyright law, allowing the lower court ruling that denied granting copyright to an AI-generated artwork to stand.
Past Editions
Looking for news that first broke in a prior month or perhaps for historical context of a story featured in this article? Links to past editions of CAI Policy Insights are provided below.
