Artifact GuideEU

EU Accessibility Act disproportionate burden decision

The EU Accessibility Act sets accessibility requirements for selected consumer products and services, including e-commerce, banking, transport, electronic communications, e-books, and self-service terminals.

Use this page to document when Article 14 is relied on, what Annex VI criteria were assessed, what evidence is retained, and when the assessment must be reopened.

Back to main artifact Review sources

Author

Sorena AI

Published

May 9, 2026

Updated

May 9, 2026

Sections

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata

Sorena AI

Published May 9, 2026

Updated May 9, 2026

Overview

An EU Accessibility Act disproportionate burden decision is not a broad opt-out. Article 14 allows accessibility requirements to apply only to the extent that compliance would not fundamentally alter the product or service and would not impose a disproportionate burden, and it requires a documented assessment against the Directive's criteria.

Section 1

When Article 14 can be used

Use this record only after confirming that the product or service is covered by Directive (EU) 2019/882 and that a specific Annex I accessibility requirement is being assessed. The decision should identify whether the issue is a fundamental alteration of the product or service's basic nature, a disproportionate burden, or both.

The Directive narrows the outcome: requirements still apply to the extent they do not create the fundamental alteration or disproportionate burden. The record therefore needs to state which accessibility requirements remain fully applicable and which requirement is limited.

Name the product or service, covered category, operator role, market or Member State, and the exact Annex I requirement being assessed.
Separate fundamental alteration from disproportionate burden; do not use cost evidence to justify a change that would instead alter the basic nature of the product or service.
Do not rely on lack of priority, time, or knowledge as a legitimate reason for non-compliance.
Do not claim disproportionate burden for financial reasons where public or private funding was provided for improving accessibility.
For a specific product or service, send information that Article 14 is being relied on to the relevant market surveillance authority or service-compliance authority, unless the Directive's microenterprise exception applies.

Sources for this answer

Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act)

Article 14 limits accessibility requirements only where compliance would fundamentally alter the product or service or impose a disproportionate burden, and requires notification when the exception is relied on.

Recommended next step

Review an Article 14 evidence pack

Check whether an EU Accessibility Act disproportionate burden file names the limited requirement, applies Annex VI criteria, keeps the right evidence, and has clear review triggers.

Research workflow

Open Research Copilot

Answer EAA Article 14, scope, and evidence questions with cited outputs.

Explore next step

Talk to Sorena

Talk through implementation

Review your scope, evidence model, controls, and next actions.

Explore next step

Section 2

Annex VI decision criteria

Annex VI makes the assessment quantitative and product- or service-specific. The record should show the cost basis used, the affected accessibility work, the operator's overall cost or turnover context, and the expected benefit for persons with disabilities.

A useful decision table has one row per accessibility requirement being limited. Each row should include the requirement, proposed accessibility work, one-off organisational costs, ongoing production or development costs, benefit assessment, turnover or overall-cost ratio, conclusion, and remaining accessibility measures.

One-off organisational costs can include additional accessibility expertise, training, new accessibility processes, accessibility guidance material, and one-off costs of understanding accessibility legislation.
Ongoing costs can include designing accessibility features, manufacturing process costs, accessibility testing, and documentation.
Compare estimated operator costs and benefits with the estimated benefit for persons with disabilities, including the amount and frequency of use of the product or service.
Compare net compliance costs with the economic operator's net turnover.
Record partial-compliance measures, because the exception should not go beyond what is necessary for the individual product or service.

Sources for this answer

Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act)

Annex VI supplies the disproportionate-burden criteria, including cost ratios, accessibility expertise and testing costs, benefits for persons with disabilities, and net turnover comparison.

Section 3

Evidence to retain

Article 14 requires economic operators to document the assessment and keep all relevant results for five years from the last making available of a product on the market or after a service was last provided, as applicable. Authorities can request a copy of the assessment.

For products, the Article 14 analysis should sit with the technical documentation because Annex IV says the technical file must be able to demonstrate that relevant accessibility requirements would introduce a fundamental alteration or disproportionate burden when Article 14 is relied on.

Keep the scoped requirement list, Annex VI cost calculations, benefit assessment, and final conclusion for each requirement being limited.
Keep design, manufacture, operation, testing, supplier, training, process, and documentation evidence used in the calculation.
For products, keep the technical documentation, EU declaration of conformity context, and any statement of which requirements are subject to the Article 14 exception.
For services, keep the general terms or equivalent service information showing how applicable accessibility requirements are met, plus the Article 14 assessment for requirements not fully met.
Keep authority requests, copies sent to authorities, corrective-action commitments, and any updated assessment versions.

Sources for this answer

Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act)

Article 14 sets the five-year retention rule and authority access to the assessment; Annex IV ties Article 14 product reliance to technical documentation.

Section 4

Review triggers and authority checks

Service providers relying on disproportionate burden must renew the assessment for each category or type of service when the service changes, when the service-compliance authority requests renewal, and at least every five years. Product records should also be ready for market surveillance review when Article 14 is relied on.

Market surveillance authorities and service-compliance authorities can check whether the Article 14 assessment was conducted and whether the Annex VI criteria were used correctly. That makes the review log part of the evidence, not an administrative afterthought.

Reopen the assessment when the service offered is altered.
Reopen it when the competent service authority requests a renewed assessment.
For services, renew in any event at least every five years.
Prepare an authority-response pack with the assessment, Annex VI calculations, retained evidence, notification record, and any corrective-action plan.

Sources for this answer

Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act)

Article 14 sets service reassessment triggers; Articles 19 and 23 require authorities to check Article 14 assessments for products and services.

Primary sources