Sample Risk & Liability Report

This report documents accessibility testing performed on specific pages of the client’s website. It identifies barriers found during testing, explains the legal exposure tied to those barriers, and records the limits of the audit.

This report is not a legal opinion. It does not certify ADA compliance. It reflects testing done on the dates listed below.

2. scope of testing

Testing dates: February 24–28, 2026
Website tested: https://example.com

Pages tested:

• Home page
• Main product listing
• Product detail template
• Checkout flow
• Contact form
• About page
• One blog article template

Total pages tested: 7 templates, representing approximately 220 live URLs.

Browsers tested:

• Chrome 121 on Windows 11
• Firefox 122 on Windows 11
• Safari 17 on macOS Sonoma

Assistive technology tested:

• NVDA 2024.1 screen reader
• VoiceOver macOS
• Keyboard-only navigation

Mobile testing:

• iPhone 14 Safari
• Android Chrome

Third-party content included:

• Stripe checkout iframe
• Google Maps embed

PDF files were not tested.

3. methodology

Testing used a combination of automated scanning and manual testing.

Automated tools:

• Axe-core scan
• Lighthouse accessibility audit

Manual testing included:

• Keyboard navigation
• Screen reader reading order
• Form labeling
• Focus visibility
• Error message clarity
• Color contrast verification

Testing followed WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria.

Sampling method: template-based testing, not full-site crawl.

Limitations:

• Dynamic content added after February 28, 2026 was not reviewed.
• User-generated content was excluded.
• Third-party widgets were tested only within visible flows.
• PDF documents were excluded.

4. summary of findings

Total issues found: 47
High severity issues: 12
Moderate issues: 21
Low severity issues: 14

Examples of high severity barriers:

• Checkout form fields missing programmatic labels
• Keyboard trap in Stripe payment iframe
• Low color contrast on sale price text (ratio 2.9:1)
• Modal dialog missing focus management
• Navigation menu inaccessible via keyboard

These barriers block users who rely on screen readers or keyboard navigation.

5. example barrier in detail

Page: https://example.com/checkout
Issue: Missing label on “Cardholder Name” field

Screen reader output:
“Edit text blank”

A blind user cannot identify the field purpose.

This violates WCAG 2.1 success criterion 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions).

Legal exposure: checkout barriers are often cited in ADA lawsuits because they block purchases.

In 2021, an apparel retailer in Los Angeles settled an accessibility case for $15,000 plus remediation after checkout form failures were documented in testing reports.

6. legal risk analysis

This section explains risk level. It does not give legal advice.

Risk factors present:

• Ecommerce checkout barriers
• Missing alt text on product images
• Keyboard traps
• No accessibility statement

These issues match claims made in common ADA website complaints.

Federal law reference: Americans with Disabilities Act Title III.
Courts often use WCAG standards to evaluate accessibility.

State law exposure may apply depending on business location. California Unruh Act allows statutory damages of $4,000 per violation per visit.

New York and Florida have active ADA website litigation.

7. limitation of certification claims

This audit does not certify ADA compliance.

Reasons:

• ADA has no official website certification system
• Accessibility can change after updates
• Not all pages were tested
• Third-party content may introduce new barriers

Any public claim stating “fully ADA compliant” would be inaccurate based on current findings.

8. remediation estimate

Estimated time to fix high severity issues:

• 20–40 developer hours

Estimated cost range:

• $2,000–$6,000 depending on hourly rate

These numbers assume access to source code and cooperation from third-party vendors.

Stripe iframe keyboard issues may require vendor support.

9. residual risk after remediation

Even after fixes, risk remains because:

• New content may introduce errors
• Staff may upload inaccessible PDFs
• Plugins may update without testing

Accessibility requires ongoing testing.

10. example of similar case outcome

In 2023, a Midwest auto parts website received a demand letter over inaccessible filters and checkout. The owner had an accessibility badge from a plugin vendor.

The badge vendor used automated scans only.

Settlement cost:

• $18,500 payment
• $7,200 remediation
• Attorney fees unknown

The badge did not stop the claim. The audit report mattered more than marketing claims.

11. recommended documentation steps

To show good faith effort:

• Keep this report with date stamps
• Record remediation commits in version control
• Save screenshots before and after fixes
• Log staff accessibility training dates
• Maintain accessibility statement with contact email

Documentation does not stop lawsuits but helps during settlement.

12. certification language approved for use

If the client wants to display an accessibility badge, approved wording:

“Accessibility audit completed by 42Lex on March 2, 2026. Testing performed against WCAG 2.1 AA on selected pages. See report for details.”

Not approved wording:

“Fully ADA compliant website.”
“Certified ADA safe.”
“Guaranteed lawsuit protection.”

13. liability limits

This report is based on testing performed between February 24 and February 28, 2026 on specific pages listed above.

No warranty is made that the website is fully accessible or compliant with any law.

Client is responsible for maintaining accessibility after remediation.

Maximum liability under contract is limited to fees paid for this audit.

14. next audit schedule

Recommended re-audit date: September 2026
Reason: site updates weekly with new content.

Large ecommerce sites should audit every 6 months.

Small brochure sites may audit yearly.

15. auditor qualifications

Lead auditor: [Name], 6 years accessibility testing
Screen reader experience: NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver
Training: IAAP CPACC exam preparation, internal 42Lex testing program

QA reviewer: [Name], 10 years frontend development, WCAG testing since 2017.

16. client acknowledgment

Client confirms they reviewed this report and understand:

• Accessibility is ongoing work
• Certification reflects testing date only
• Legal compliance depends on multiple factors

Signed: __________________
Date: __________________

End of report.