Communications, Video, and Technology Accessibility Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to ensure functional equivalence for individuals with disabilities across an evolving digital landscape by updating and expanding accessibility mandates for modern communication and video technologies.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands and modernizes accessibility requirements for communication and video services, extending mandates for closed captioning, audio description, and sign language interpretation to online video programming, consumer-generated media, and video conferencing services. It also updates telecommunications relay services, enhances the National DeafBlind equipment distribution program, and strengthens enforcement mechanisms for accessibility standards.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for closing significant accessibility gaps created by the rapid evolution of digital technologies since the passage of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. They contend it ensures equal access to essential communication, information, and emergency services for individuals with disabilities, promoting inclusion in all aspects of modern life.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that the bill's broad expansion of mandates, particularly to online video and consumer-generated media, could impose substantial economic burdens and technical challenges on service providers, content creators, and manufacturers. They might contend that the scope and cost of compliance could stifle innovation or lead to increased costs for consumers.
The bill is moderately complex due to its numerous amendments to existing law and technical definitions, requiring a dedicated reading to grasp its full implications.
Sec. 101, amending 47 U.S.C. 613(h) to (a)
Expanded Definitions for Video Programming Accessibility
This section updates and expands key definitions related to video programming accessibility. It broadens the terms 'audio description' and 'video programming' to explicitly include online content and consumer-generated media. It also introduces specific definitions for 'live programming,' 'near-live programming,' 'online video programming,' and 'prerecorded programming,' providing a clearer framework for applying accessibility mandates to diverse digital content. The definition of 'disability' is aligned with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these updated definitions are essential for providing the necessary clarity to extend accessibility requirements to the vast and growing amount of online and consumer-generated media, ensuring that the law keeps pace with technological advancements.
Critics contend
Opponents may express concern that broadening these definitions could expand the scope of regulation beyond what was initially intended for traditional broadcast media, potentially increasing compliance burdens on new categories of entities.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive accessibility in a digital age with the potential for increased regulatory scope and compliance challenges for a wider array of content providers.
Sec. 102, amending 47 U.S.C. 613(c) and inserting new (d)
Expanded Closed Captioning Requirements for Online Content
This section mandates the FCC to revise its regulations to require closed captioning for new online video programming within 12 months of Advisory Committee recommendations, with implementation deadlines ranging from 2 to 6 years. It specifies that captions must be in English and Spanish. Crucially, it requires live or near-live online programming to be treated as prerecorded for quality standards if made available more than 48 hours after initial broadcast. The bill also directs the FCC to prescribe regulations for older online video programming and consumer-generated media, requiring platforms to provide authoring tools, notice, and guidance for users to add captions to their content. Furthermore, it mandates regular (every 4 years) updates to caption quality regulations.
Sec. 103, amending 47 U.S.C. 613(g)
Expanded Audio Description Requirements for Video Programming
This section requires the FCC to revise regulations for audio description on new television and online video programming within 12-18 months of Advisory Committee recommendations, with implementation deadlines 2-6 years after the effective date. It mandates audio description in English and Spanish, and requires content to be labeled and searchable. The bill also directs the FCC to prescribe regulations for older online video programming and consumer-generated media to maximize accessibility, requiring platforms to provide authoring tools, notice, and guidance for users to add *closed captions* (as specified in the text) to their content. Additionally, it mandates the FCC to prescribe regulations within 4 years to ensure the technical quality of audio description, covering effective conveyance of visual elements, text-to-speech quality, and consistency.
Sec. 105, inserting new 47 U.S.C. 613(i)
Sign Language Interpretation Visibility Standards
This section requires the FCC to prescribe regulations within one year of Advisory Committee recommendations to ensure that whenever sign language interpretation is provided in video programming (whether on television or online), it remains visible on the viewer's screen throughout the program. The FCC will establish specific standards for this visibility. This aims to prevent situations where sign language interpreters are obscured or removed from the screen, which diminishes accessibility for sign language users.
Sec. 106
Closed Captioning, Audio Description, and Sign Language Advisory Committee
This section establishes an Advisory Committee within 60 days of the bill's enactment, composed of technical experts, industry representatives, disability advocates, and academics. The committee is tasked with developing comprehensive recommendations within 180 days for the FCC regarding closed captioning and audio description, covering aspects like implementation deadlines, technical protocols, compatibility, quality metrics, searchability, authoring tools, and application to older online content and consumer-generated media. Additionally, it must submit recommendations within 6 months for standards to ensure the consistent visibility of sign language interpretation in video programming.
Sec. 201, amending 47 U.S.C. 303
Enhanced Accessibility for Video Playback Apparatuses
This section updates accessibility requirements for video playback apparatuses (e.g., televisions, set-top boxes). It redefines 'visually impaired' to 'low vision' and 'video description' to 'audio description.' Key new requirements include making accessibility features (captioning, audio description) 'readily accessible' and, if achievable, providing a dedicated audio channel for audio description. Apparatuses must prompt users to modify accessibility settings upon initial power-on or factory reset. Furthermore, if technically feasible, devices must provide hardware and software compatibility and integration with a range of assistive technologies, such as braille displays, switch activation, hearing aids, hands-free technologies, and voice recognition for speech disabilities. The FCC is mandated to apportion compliance responsibilities among manufacturers, importers, and software providers.
Sec. 301, amending 47 U.S.C. 153 and 47 U.S.C. 617(e)
Video Conferencing Accessibility Mandates
This section introduces the definition of 'visual interpretation services' (real-time descriptions of visual information for blind/low vision users). It then requires the FCC to prescribe regulations within three years to mandate that interoperable video conferencing services and equipment provide, 'unless not achievable,' a suite of accessibility features. These include voice recognition for speech disabilities, simplified user interfaces and instructional materials for cognitive disabilities, visual interpretation services, screen-reader capability, refreshable braille display compatibility, and hands-free technologies. Compliance can be met through built-in features or third-party solutions, provided consumers are not charged for accessibility. If built-in solutions are not achievable, compatibility with existing peripheral devices is required.
Sec. 302, amending 47 U.S.C. 225
Modernization and Expansion of Telecommunications Relay Services
This section significantly updates telecommunications relay services. It introduces new definitions for 'communication facilitator' (for DeafBlind individuals), 'Deaf interpreter,' and 'direct video calling service' (one-to-one video communication for sign language users with customer service). It redefines 'telecommunications relay services' to explicitly include these new services. The FCC is mandated to prescribe regulations within two years to make these new services eligible for support from the relay service fund. Crucially, it requires regulations to achieve full, equal, and direct access to emergency services (9-1-1) for sign language users, ensuring location information transmission and speed comparable to voice calls. The FCC must also reassess and update relay service regulations every four years to adapt to evolving technologies.
Sec. 303, amending 47 U.S.C. 620
National DeafBlind Equipment Distribution Program Expansion
This section expands the National DeafBlind Equipment Distribution Program. It removes the 'low-income' eligibility requirement, making the program accessible to a broader range of DeafBlind individuals. The definition of 'individual who is DeafBlind' is also expanded to include those diagnosed with cortical/cerebral visual impairment or auditory processing disorder. Furthermore, the annual funding cap for the program is doubled from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000, with annual adjustments for inflation. The FCC is required to update its regulations within 18 months to reflect these changes.
Sec. 401, inserting new 47 U.S.C. 617(j)
Accessible Customer Service for Sign Language Users
This section mandates that manufacturers and service providers of advanced communication and video programming services, if they offer live or machine-generated customer assistance to the general public, must make that assistance usable to individuals who rely on sign language. This is to be achieved by making direct video calling services available for real-time communication with customer service agents, 'unless not achievable.' The FCC is required to prescribe regulations within one to two years to ensure that customer and technical support for sign language users is not less effective in terms of availability, scope, and quality than that provided to the general public.
Sec. 501, adding new 47 U.S.C. 723
Proactive Accessibility for Emerging Technologies
This section introduces a new framework for addressing accessibility in emerging technologies. It requires the FCC, in consultation with the U.S. Access Board, to submit reports to Congress every five years. These reports will assess the accessibility opportunities and barriers presented by technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented/virtual/extended reality, spatial computing, wireless technologies, robotics, and the Internet of Things for individuals with disabilities. The assessment must specifically consider individuals with particular barriers, including those with limited language abilities, multiple disabilities, or those lacking access due to age, location, or socioeconomic status. Following each report, the FCC is mandated to prescribe new or update existing regulations within two years to ensure the accessibility of these emerging technologies and services, where necessary to further existing accessibility goals.
Sec. 601, amending 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5)
Strengthened Accessibility Enforcement Authority
This section strengthens the FCC's enforcement capabilities by explicitly including violations of accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities under its general forfeiture penalty authority. It specifically lists various sections of the Communications Act related to accessibility (e.g., relay services, advanced communications, video programming, apparatuses) as subject to these penalties. The bill also clarifies that its provisions do not modify, impair, supersede, or preclude the enforcement of other State or Federal disability rights and civil rights laws, ensuring that existing protections remain intact.
Sec. 602, amending 47 U.S.C. 618
Enhanced Accessibility Complaint Reporting
This section updates accessibility complaint reporting requirements. It mandates the FCC to submit a report to Congress every three years detailing the number and nature of accessibility complaints received under various specified sections of the Communications Act (related to apparatuses, video programming, and advanced communications). The report must also describe the actions taken to resolve these complaints, including any forfeiture penalties assessed, and the length of time taken for resolution. Additionally, it requires reporting on the number, status, nature, and outcome of mandamus actions and appeals related to accessibility.
Requires live or near-live online programming, if made available more than 48 hours after its initial availability, to be treated as prerecorded programming for closed captioning quality standards. The Advisory Committee is also tasked with recommending best practices for this.
Sec. 102(c)(2)(C)(iv) and Sec. 106(d)(1)(H)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for technical details that refine the application of broader accessibility mandates.
Case for: Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for improving the quality of captions on archived live content. Live captions often have lower accuracy due to real-time constraints; treating archived content as prerecorded ensures that providers must meet higher quality standards once the time-sensitive nature has passed, enhancing accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing viewers.
Case against: Some online content providers may contend that this requirement imposes additional post-production costs for content that was initially live, potentially increasing the burden of maintaining extensive online archives.
Estimated impact: This provision is expected to significantly improve the quality of closed captions for a large volume of archived online video content that was originally live or near-live.
Within the section mandating audio description regulations for online video programming and consumer generated media, this specific clause requires entities making available consumer generated media to provide authoring tools that permit users to add *closed captions* (not audio description) to their videos.
Sec. 103(a)(3)(D)(ii)
Why it matters:This could be a drafting oversight, an intentional distinction based on perceived technical feasibility for user-generated content, or a prioritization of captions for this specific media type.
Case for: Proponents might argue that providing tools for closed captions on consumer-generated media is a more achievable and widespread first step for user-uploaded content, given the higher complexity and cost of generating quality audio description, especially for amateur content.
Case against: Critics might point out that this creates an inconsistency within the bill, potentially limiting audio description access for consumer-generated media compared to other content types, despite the section's overall intent to expand audio description.
Estimated impact: This provision may result in consumer-generated media platforms only being explicitly required to provide tools for captions, not audio description, for user-uploaded content, potentially limiting audio description access for blind and low vision users of such media.
Requires video playback apparatuses, if technically feasible, to provide the necessary hardware and software for compatibility and, to the extent achievable, the integration of assistive technologies and services commonly used by individuals with disabilities. This includes refreshable braille displays, switch activation devices (like sip and puff), hearing aids, hands-free technologies, and voice recognition functionality for individuals with speech disabilities.
Sec. 201(a)(7)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for specifying technical design requirements for consumer electronics.
Case for: Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for ensuring that consumer electronics are designed with broad accessibility in mind, reducing the need for costly external adapters or complex workarounds and making devices more universally usable for individuals with diverse disabilities.
Case against: Manufacturers may argue that the terms 'technically feasible' and 'achievable' are subjective and could lead to disputes, significant redesign costs, or challenges in ensuring compatibility with the vast and evolving ecosystem of assistive technologies.
Estimated impact: This provision has the potential to broadly impact the design and functionality of consumer electronics, making them more inherently accessible and reducing barriers for individuals with a wide range of disabilities.
Requires FCC regulations for emergency services access for sign language users to ensure, 'unless not achievable,' that users communicating via video relay service or direct video calling service can use native dialing or 1-step access on a mobile phone. Furthermore, it mandates that location information is transmitted immediately and directly to the applicable emergency authority, and that such communication is received with the same speed and efficiency as a voice call made by dialing 9-1-1.
Sec. 302(d)(4)(C)
Why it matters:This is a technical implementation detail crucial for the effectiveness of emergency services for sign language users.
Case for: Supporters emphasize that this provision is critical for ensuring equivalent emergency response for sign language users, as accurate location information and rapid communication are vital in life-threatening situations, directly addressing a significant safety gap.
Case against: Implementing this provision presents significant technical and infrastructure challenges for emergency authorities and relay service providers, requiring complex integration of real-time location data and ensuring equivalent speed across different communication modalities.
Estimated impact: This provision has potentially life-saving implications for sign language users by ensuring equitable access to emergency services, but it requires substantial investment and coordination across multiple entities, including mobile carriers, relay services, and public safety answering points.