When a hospital, school district, or federal agency buys an AI accessibility tool to satisfy ADA (or AODA, or EAA) — is that real access, or just a checkbox that lets them stop hiring interpreters? Who's supposed to catch the difference?
Accessibility law tells institutions what to provide but rarely how to verify it works. That gap is where AI gets dangerous: a shiny demo, a purchase order, a compliance checkbox — and the Deaf user on the receiving end is the one who discovers the tool doesn't actually work. Procurement officers aren't ASL experts. Regulators move slowly. Vendors market aggressively. What does accountable procurement for AI accessibility look like — and whose job is it to define the floor?
Prompts to get you thinking
- Have you encountered an AI accessibility tool that was clearly bought to satisfy compliance, not to actually work?
- What should procurement officers be required to verify before buying an AI interpreting or captioning tool?
- Should regulators (FCC, DOJ, CRTC, EU bodies) set minimum standards for AI accessibility — and what should those standards include?
Join free to reply
Replies
No replies yet — be the first.
This thread just opened. The first voices here shape how the rest of the conversation unfolds. Post your perspective above.