Four questions. The Act reaches a listed set of services offered to EU consumers, and it lets the smallest service providers out — so "no" is a real answer here, and it is the answer we would rather give you than sell you an audit you do not need for a rule you are not subject to.
All four answers are below. Answer the questions above to see only yours.
The EAA reaches you.
You sell to consumers in the EU, in a sector Article 2(2) lists, and you are above the microenterprise threshold. That is the whole test — there is no further filter, and being established outside the EU does not remove you, because the Act follows the service to the consumer.
What is left is a technical question: does the app meet EN 301 549 today, and can you show the working. That is what an audit answers.
An audit is one credit, one app, delivered within 48 hours, with a recording or a measurement behind every finding.
The EAA probably does not reach you.
Fewer than 10 people and at or under EUR 2 million puts a service provider inside the microenterprise exemption in Article 4(5). We are not going to show you a fine figure for a rule that does not apply to you — that is the fear-selling this product exists to argue against.
Two things still apply and neither is about size. The ADA has no microenterprise exemption, so if you sell into the United States the exposure there is unchanged. And a screen reader that cannot complete your checkout loses the sale whatever the law says.
The report is the same either way. It just stops being about a directive and starts being about the people who could not finish the task.
The EAA probably does not reach this app.
Article 2(2) is a list, not a catch-all. An app that is not e-commerce, consumer banking, e-books, electronic communications, access to audiovisual media, passenger transport or 112 is outside the Act's service scope, whatever its size. Read the list again before relying on this: 'a consumer can buy something in it' is enough to make an app e-commerce.
The ADA line is separate and much broader, and an accessibility failure is a usability failure before it is a legal one.
The report is the same either way. It just stops being about a directive and starts being about the people who could not finish the task.
The EAA does not reach you.
The Act applies to services offered to consumers in the Union. No EU consumers, no EAA obligation — and that stays true only for as long as it stays true; the answer changes the day you open an EU storefront.
If you sell in the United States, the ADA applies regardless of your headcount, and mobile app filings are a live category. That is a different reason to run the same audit.
The findings and the evidence are identical; only the clause column changes.
What this page will not do
The exemption in Article 4(5) covers microenterprises providing services. A microenterprise that places a product on the market — hardware, a terminal, an e-reader — still applies the accessibility requirements; it is only relieved of some of the documentation. A mobile app on its own is a service.
There is also a disproportionate-burden exception in Article 14. It is not on this page because it is not a fact about your company — it is an assessment you have to carry out and be able to produce, so no form can answer it for you.
This is a technical readiness perspective. Scope, national implementation and the two exceptions in Articles 14 and 4(4) all turn on facts about a specific company that a four-question form cannot see. Nothing here is a determination, and no page that uses this file may present it as one.