Does accessiBe or UserWay make my site compliant with the EAA or BFSG?

No. An overlay injects JavaScript that re-renders the page after it loads; it does not change the source HTML that an enforcement body or plaintiff actually tests. The EU Accessibility Act and the German BFSG put the obligation on the underlying product. In April 2025 the US FTC fined accessiBe $1M over deceptive WCAG-compliance claims.

I run an overlay and still received a BFSG Abmahnung — what now?

The overlay is not a defence on the merits. What helps is a dated, tamper-evident scan of your actual source HTML showing what is broken and that you are fixing it. Run a free scan to see the real findings, then attach a timestamped evidence report to your response.

Will removing the overlay make me compliant?

No — removing it does not fix the underlying issues either. Compliance is a property of the source code. The path is: scan the source, fix the real issues, and keep a continuous, timestamped record of the work as evidence of due diligence.

You installed an overlay. Does it protect you from a complaint?

If you added accessiBe, UserWay, EqualWeb or AudioEye and assumed the EU Accessibility Act and German BFSG were handled — this is the honest answer, and what actually helps if a cease-and-desist (Abmahnung) lands.

See your real source findings — free → The citations, in full ↗

The short answer

No. An overlay is a JavaScript widget that re-renders the page after it loads. It does not change the source HTML an enforcement body or a civil-society plaintiff actually tests. The EAA (Directive 2019/882) and § 12 BFSG put the obligation on the underlying product — so an overlay is marketing compliance, not legal compliance.

In April 2025 the US FTC fined accessiBe $1M over deceptive WCAG-compliance claims.

Why the overlay didn't cover you

Three things the overlay vendor's badge does not change:

The tested artefact. German BITV-Test methodology and EU enforcement evaluate the page as delivered — the source markup, not the post-injection DOM your overlay produces.
The screen-reader experience. Independent researchers have documented for years that overlays frequently break assistive technology rather than fix it. The full citation list — FTC, the Overlay Fact Sheet (700+ practitioners), Adrian Roselli, Karl Groves — is on our overlay reference brief.
The evidence. There is nothing to timestamp. An overlay produces no dated, tamper-evident record of what your site looked like and when — which is exactly what a Fachanwalt attaches to a response.

What actually helps — whether or not a letter has arrived

See the real findings. Run a free source-code scan (axe-core, the engine in Lighthouse and Chrome DevTools). No signup. You see exactly what a regulator or plaintiff would see.
If a letter has arrived: attach a timestamped evidence report (€29, one-off) — an RFC 3161-timestamped record of your source findings your lawyer can submit as proof you assessed the site.
Publish the required statement. Most covered shops must publish an accessibility statement (§ 14 BFSG). Build one free with our statement generator.
Show ongoing diligence. German courts have been receptive to a due-diligence posture when the operator shows continuous monitoring, not a one-off check. That is what WCAGdesk Defense (€299/mo) records.

See what your source code actually scores.

Free first scan, no signup. The findings — and the timestamped record we generate alongside them — are what an overlay can never give you.

Start free scan WCAGdesk vs accessiBe