Accessibility in Australia, 2026: are lawsuits coming our way?

Download an audio version of this article here: MP3 Audio File

If you work anywhere near digital, property, customer experience, or HR, you have probably noticed what is happening in the United States. Website accessibility lawsuits are everywhere. In some sectors, they have become almost routine.

Australia is not there yet. But assuming we are immune would be a mistake.

This is not legal advice. It is a practical look at where things are heading.

Australia already has laws that make inaccessibility unlawful. What is changing is how easy it is for people to challenge organisations that get it wrong. As those barriers come down, risk goes up, even if it still feels quieter than overseas.

Accessibility has always been covered by Australian law. The Disability Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to discriminate when providing goods and services. That includes websites, apps, booking systems, kiosks, portals, and any other system people are expected to use. Digital services were never excluded. It just took time for practice to catch up with reality.

In plain English, if people cannot reasonably use your systems to access a service, you may have a problem.

This becomes very clear when you look at modern self-service technology through lived experience. ATMs, supermarket self-checkouts, airline check-in kiosks are all sold as modern, efficient, and helpful. They are, unless you cannot read the screen.

I use these systems regularly, and many assume visual confidence as a baseline. Small text, poor contrast, glare, short time-outs, and unclear prompts can turn “convenience” into stress very quickly. From a legal perspective, this matters more than many organisations realise.

If a kiosk or self-service system becomes the primary or preferred way to access a service, and it is not reasonably usable by someone with a vision impairment, that can amount to denying access to the service itself. That is exactly what the Disability Discrimination Act is concerned with.

Adding a small accessibility button to the screen does not automatically fix this. If the core interaction still relies on seeing and interpreting a screen, the barrier remains. An accessibility option that does not meaningfully change usability is unlikely to carry much weight if challenged.

These systems are not fringe technology. They are now normal service channels. That creates legal risk when customers are forced to ask for help while others are not, when services cannot be used independently or privately, when no equivalent alternative exists, or when staff are expected to improvise support without training or consistency. Individually, these may feel like design flaws. Taken together, they start to look like systemic exclusion, which is exactly what complaints and courts tend to focus on.

Most accessibility issues in Australia follow a familiar path. A complaint is lodged, usually with the Australian Human Rights Commission, and an attempt at resolution is made. This is often the moment an organisation realises that a well-intentioned rollout has created an unintended legal and reputational problem.

If the matter does not resolve, it can proceed to federal court. Courts can order changes to systems, award damages, and in some cases make costs orders. Australia is not known for massive payouts, but court-ordered remediation under time pressure is rarely cheap or simple.

One reason Australia has not seen the same volume of cases as the United States is cost risk. Taking a discrimination case to court used to be financially daunting. That has changed. Recent amendments introduced cost protections for people bringing discrimination cases, making it less risky to push matters further if resolution is not reached. This does not mean a flood of lawsuits tomorrow, but it does mean fewer barriers for people who choose to escalate.

Complaint data already shows disability discrimination as one of the largest categories, with a growing number of complaints focused on systems and processes rather than individual behaviour. That matters, because digital services and self-service systems scale problems very efficiently.

Australia is unlikely to replicate the US experience exactly. The legal system and incentives are different. But the direction is clear. Expectations are clearer, barriers to escalation are lower, and confidence to challenge inaccessible services is increasing. Risk here tends to grow slowly, then feel obvious in hindsight.

The biggest cost for organisations is rarely the legal outcome itself. It is the emergency remediation work, delayed rollouts, reputational damage, lost procurement opportunities, and staff scrambling to make systems usable after the fact. Accessibility issues are cheapest before they are embedded into infrastructure and most expensive once they are everywhere.

A sensible mindset for 2026 is to treat accessibility as legal and operational risk, not charity. Self-service systems should work without relying on vision alone. Alternatives should be real and equivalent, not symbolic. Staff should be trained so assistance is consistent, dignified, and not improvised.

If your accessibility plan relies on a tiny icon in the corner of the screen and good intentions, it is probably not a plan. It is a future meeting with legal.

If the goal is to reduce the chances of ever dealing with a lawsuit in the first place, this is where awareness matters. At BlindSpot Solutions, the focus is on accessibility awareness and building more inclusive workplace experiences, not just ticking compliance boxes. When people understand how barriers show up in real life, better decisions tend to follow naturally.

Investing in awareness today can save you a fortune tomorrow. And not just in dollars. Your brand reputation is on the line too.

Australia is not becoming the United States. But it is becoming a place where inaccessible systems are harder to defend, easier to challenge, and more expensive to unwind. Designing access properly now is still far cheaper than explaining it later.