What these products claim, and what they do not
This page exists because the accessibility tooling market has a history of promising things software cannot deliver, and because a buyer deserves to read what a vendor will and will not stand behind before paying for it.
What this page is, and is not
It is a statement of what we represent about our products. It is not a contract and not legal advice.
Our products are sold through WPBay, and the terms of that sale — payment, refunds, licence duration — are WPBay's and are shown at checkout. Nothing here overrides them.
What we do not claim
We do not claim that any product makes your site compliant with WCAG, the European Accessibility Act, the ADA, or any other standard or law. No automated tool can do that, ours included.
Automated testing finds roughly a third of real accessibility barriers. The remainder needs a person with a keyboard and a screen reader. A clean report from our scanner is a good sign; it is not a conformance statement, and the report says so where you read it.
We do not claim to keep your site compliant over time. A scan describes a site as it was when scanned.
We do not install an accessibility overlay, and we do not sell one. Overlays do not make a site conformant. In the first half of 2025, 22.6% of accessibility lawsuits in the United States targeted sites that had an overlay installed, and in 2025 the US Federal Trade Commission fined an overlay vendor $1 million for claiming its product could make websites WCAG-compliant.
We do not give legal advice. Whether the European Accessibility Act, the EU AI Act, or any national transposition applies to you depends on where you operate, what you sell, and how large you are. Article 4(5) of Directive (EU) 2019/882, for example, exempts microenterprises providing services altogether — and we would rather tell you that than sell you something you do not need.
What we do claim, and how to check it
The success criteria our tools cite are correct. Of the 25 checks in Accessibility Audit, 18 map to a WCAG 2.2 success criterion and 7 are recommended practice — and the report labels which is which. You can verify any of them against the W3C Recommendation in a couple of minutes.
We did not always get this right. In August 2026 eight of those rules cited criteria that were wrong, obsolete, or unrelated to what the check tested. A marketplace reviewer found three and we found the rest; the audit is published in full, including what was wrong and for how long.
The accessibility document our generator builds is the one the law names. For a business providing services to consumers that is Annex V of Directive (EU) 2019/882; for a public sector body it is the model in Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523. It is a starting point built from what you tell it and what your site does. It is not a filing, and where your country requires submission through a national portal, publishing a page does not replace that.
Nothing leaves your site except what we disclose. The accessibility scan contacts no external service; the chatbot sends visitor messages to the AI provider you configure and nothing else, and the readme lists exactly what is in each request. Usage analytics are switched off in both products.
About what we publish
Everything on this site about our products is written by us. Articles that discuss a plugin we sell say so in the article, not in a footnote. We do not commission reviews, we do not pay for endorsements, and we do not present our own writing as an independent opinion.
If you find something we have published that reads as independent and is not, tell us and we will correct it. We have already had to: six articles went out in August 2026 without that disclosure, and were amended.
If something here is wrong
Every factual claim on this page is checkable, and we would rather be corrected than believed. The support form inside each plugin reaches us.