Communications, Video, and Technology Accessibility Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to modernize and broaden accessibility requirements for communication and video services and equipment, ensuring individuals with disabilities have functionally equivalent access in an increasingly digital and technologically advanced landscape.
What it actually does
This bill significantly updates and expands the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) to address modern digital communication and video programming. It mandates the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish new regulations for closed captioning and audio description on online video programming and consumer-generated media, enhances accessibility requirements for video playback apparatuses and video conferencing services, expands telecommunications relay services, and increases funding for the National DeafBlind Equipment Distribution Program. The bill also requires customer service to be accessible via sign language and mandates FCC reports and regulations on emerging technology accessibility.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the original CVAA, while groundbreaking, is outdated given the rapid evolution of online content, streaming services, and emerging technologies like AI and virtual reality. They contend this bill is essential to close existing accessibility gaps, ensure equal participation for individuals with disabilities in the digital economy and society, and prevent a 'digital divide' from widening. Supporters emphasize the importance of clear, enforceable standards for captioning, audio description, and sign language access across all platforms.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly from industry, might argue that the bill imposes significant new compliance costs and technical burdens on content creators, service providers, and manufacturers, potentially stifling innovation or leading to increased consumer prices. Concerns could be raised about the feasibility of retroactively applying accessibility requirements to older online content or consumer-generated media, and the challenges of keeping regulations current with rapidly evolving emerging technologies, even with provisions for economic burden exemptions and phased deadlines.
The bill is detailed and amends several sections of existing law, requiring careful reading to understand the scope of new mandates and regulatory timelines. An informed reader will need the estimated time to grasp its full implications.
Title I, Sec. 102
Expansion of Closed Captioning Requirements
This provision mandates the FCC to revise its regulations to require closed captioning for all new online video programming and consumer-generated media, with deadlines ranging from 2 to 6 years after the regulations' effective date. It also requires English and Spanish captions, defines responsibilities among entities involved in online video delivery, and ensures that live/near-live programming made available more than 48 hours later is treated as prerecorded for quality assessment. Furthermore, the FCC must prescribe regulations for older online video programming and consumer-generated media, including requiring platforms to provide authoring tools for users to add captions.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that extending captioning requirements to online video and user-generated content is crucial for ensuring that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are not excluded from the vast majority of modern media consumption. They assert that the current laws are outdated and that this update will provide functionally equivalent access, promoting inclusion and participation in society.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that the broad scope of these requirements, particularly for consumer-generated media and older content, could impose an undue economic burden on platforms and content creators. They might contend that the technical challenges and costs associated with captioning a massive volume of diverse online content could be prohibitive, potentially leading to reduced content availability or increased operational expenses passed on to consumers.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the imperative for universal accessibility with the practical and economic challenges faced by a diverse and rapidly evolving online media ecosystem. It seeks to ensure inclusion while acknowledging the need for phased implementation and consideration of economic burden.
Title I, Sec. 103
Expansion of Audio Description Requirements
This provision mandates the FCC to revise its regulations to require audio description for video programming first published or exhibited on television, and for new online video programming and consumer-generated media. Deadlines for implementation range from 2 to 6 years. It requires English and Spanish audio description, labeling, searchability, and dedicated audio channels where achievable. The FCC must also prescribe regulations for audio description quality, including for text-to-speech voices, and allow for economic burden exemptions. Similar to captioning, platforms must provide authoring tools for users to add audio description to consumer-generated media.
Title II, Sec. 201
Enhanced Accessibility for Video Playback Apparatuses
This provision amends the Communications Act to enhance accessibility features on video playback apparatuses (e.g., smart TVs, streaming devices). It requires that mechanisms for activating closed captioning, audio description, and other accessibility features be 'readily accessible.' It also mandates that, if achievable and technically feasible, apparatuses include a dedicated audio channel for audio description, prompt users to modify accessibility settings upon initial setup or reset, and provide hardware/software compatibility with assistive technologies like refreshable braille displays, switch activation devices, hearing aids, hands-free technologies, and voice recognition for individuals with speech disabilities.
Title III, Sec. 301
Accessibility for Video Conferencing Services
This provision mandates the FCC to prescribe regulations requiring providers of interoperable video conferencing services and manufacturers of related equipment to make various accessibility features available, unless not achievable. These features include voice recognition for speech disabilities, simplified user interfaces for cognitive disabilities, accessible instructional materials, visual interpretation services, screen-reader capability, refreshable braille display compatibility, and hands-free technologies. It allows for industry flexibility, permitting either built-in accessibility or compatibility with third-party solutions, provided consumers are not charged extra for achieving accessibility.
Title III, Sec. 302
Modernization and Expansion of Telecommunications Relay Services
This provision expands the definitions of telecommunications relay services to include 'Communication facilitators' for DeafBlind individuals, 'Deaf interpreters,' and 'Direct video calling services' for sign language users to communicate with call centers and emergency authorities. It mandates the FCC to define these services as eligible for support from the relay service fund. Crucially, it requires regulations for full, equal, and direct access to public safety answering points (PSAPs) and emergency authorities for sign language users, including native dialing and location information transmission for mobile 9-1-1 calls. The FCC is also required to reassess and update these regulations every four years to respond to evolving communication technologies.
Title V, Sec. 501
Emerging Technology Accessibility
This provision adds a new section to the Communications Act, requiring 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 emerging communication and video programming technologies, such as those involving 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 (e.g., limited language, cognitive, multiple disabilities, DeafBlind) and those lacking access due to age, location, socioeconomic status, or Tribal affiliation. Within two years of each report, the FCC must prescribe new or update existing regulations to ensure the accessibility of these emerging technologies.
Treats live or near-live programming as prerecorded if made available more than 48 hours after initial availability, for the purpose of closed captioning quality obligations. This also extends existing quality requirements to online video programming and consumer-generated media.
Sec. 102(c)(2)(C)(iv) and Sec. 102(d)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining scope and applicability within technical regulations, ensuring clarity for compliance and enforcement.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures high-quality captions for content that remains available long-term, as the challenges of live captioning (e.g., accuracy) are mitigated once the content is no longer live. It prevents a lower standard of accessibility for evergreen content.
Case against: Some content providers might argue that re-captioning or significantly improving captions for archived live content within 48 hours could be economically burdensome, especially for a large back catalog, even if the content is no longer 'live'.
Estimated impact: Ensures a higher standard of caption quality for a significant portion of online video content that originates as live or near-live but is subsequently archived and made available on demand.
Requires, unless not achievable, that a person can have a single telephone number for receiving calls and messages from other entities calling by means of video relay services (VRS) or voice/electronic text messaging services.
Sec. 302(d)(4)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail within a broader set of regulatory updates, common in legislative drafting to ensure specific functionalities.
Case for: Proponents argue that a single telephone number is crucial for seamless communication and functional equivalence, eliminating the need for separate numbers or complex routing for VRS users. This simplifies communication for individuals who rely on VRS.
Case against: Some telecommunications providers might argue that implementing a single, universal number for VRS and voice/text services presents significant technical and infrastructure challenges, particularly in ensuring reliable routing and integration across diverse systems, potentially leading to increased operational costs.
Estimated impact: Enhances the ease of communication for VRS users by streamlining their contact information, making them more accessible to others.
Expands the definition of 'individual who is DeafBlind' to explicitly include individuals diagnosed with a cortical or cerebral visual impairment and/or an auditory processing disorder, in addition to the existing definition from the Helen Keller National Center Act.
Sec. 303(b)
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to an existing definition, common in legislative updates to clarify scope and ensure comprehensive coverage.
Case for: Proponents argue that this expanded definition ensures that a broader range of individuals with combined vision and hearing impairments, including those with specific neurological conditions, are eligible for critical equipment and services, reflecting a more inclusive understanding of DeafBlindness.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding definitions to be more inclusive for disability services, as it aligns with the intent of such programs. Potential concerns might be about the increased demand on resources without corresponding funding increases, though this bill does increase the funding cap.
Estimated impact: Increases the number of eligible individuals for the National DeafBlind Equipment Distribution Program, potentially expanding access to essential communication equipment.