Companies selling into both US and EU markets face two separate legal regimes with one shared technical standard. ADA Title III points toward WCAG 2.1 AA through case law and DOJ guidance. The European Accessibility Act points toward EN 301 549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA. The audit work overlaps heavily. The documentation, deadlines, and reporting paths do not. A single platform that consolidates findings, remediation status, and conformance reporting keeps both regions aligned without duplicating effort.
Accessibility Tracker Platform was built for this exact scenario. Upload audit reports for each digital asset, map issues to WCAG success criteria, assign work, and generate reports that satisfy both ADA and EAA documentation needs from the same dataset.
| Element | How It Works on One Platform |
|---|---|
| Shared standard | WCAG 2.1 AA underpins both ADA expectations and EN 301 549 for EAA. |
| Audit input | Upload an expert audit report per digital asset; issues are parsed and mapped to success criteria. |
| Remediation tracking | Assign issues, set status, and monitor progress across web, mobile, and software assets. |
| Reporting | Generate ACRs, progress reports, and documentation that support ADA and EAA records. |
| Scope | Multiple projects under one portfolio for companies with regional sites, apps, or SaaS products. |
Why One Platform Makes Sense for ADA and EAA
ADA Title III litigation and EAA enforcement operate on different tracks, but the underlying technical work is largely the same. Both point to WCAG 2.1 AA as the operational standard. A developer fixing a missing form label fixes it once, and that fix counts for both regions.
What differs is the paperwork. ADA risk is addressed through audit reports, remediation logs, and accessibility statements. EAA conformance calls for documentation tied to EN 301 549, often requested by procurement teams or regulators in specific member states. Running these as separate projects in separate tools creates duplicate data entry, inconsistent status reporting, and drift between what each team believes is fixed.
Consolidating to one platform means the audit finding, the remediation action, and the resulting documentation share one source of truth.
How Do You Structure Projects for Both Regions?
Start with your digital asset inventory. A US ecommerce site, an EU ecommerce site, a shared mobile app, and an internal SaaS tool are four distinct projects, even when some share code. Each project gets its own audit and its own remediation log inside the platform.
If your US and EU sites run on the same codebase with regional variations, audit the primary site and document the variations separately. This avoids auditing the same template twice while still capturing any region-specific content issues.
For SaaS products sold to EU public sector buyers, the ACR tied to EN 301 549 is often a procurement requirement. That ACR lives in the same platform as the audit it was generated from, so the evidence trail stays intact.
Uploading and Mapping Audit Findings
Audit reports come in as spreadsheets. The platform parses each issue, maps it to the correct WCAG success criterion, and places it into a tracked list with severity, location, and recommended remediation. From that point, the issue can be assigned, updated, and closed with validation.
Because every issue is tied to a WCAG criterion, the same finding can be referenced in an ADA-focused audit report and in an EN 301 549 ACR without rewriting anything. The technical work product is one dataset. The outputs are formatted for each audience.
Remediation Tracking Across Projects
Remediation is where most companies lose visibility. A spreadsheet works for one audit. It breaks down at three audits across two regions with four development teams.
Inside the platform, each issue carries status, owner, and timestamps. Leadership can see portfolio-wide progress across all assets, while individual project managers work their own queue. Risk Factor or User Impact prioritization formulas help teams sequence issues so the highest-impact items get addressed first, which matters for both ADA risk reduction and EAA deadlines.
Generating Documentation for ADA and EAA
ADA documentation typically includes the audit report, a remediation log, and an accessibility statement. EAA documentation typically includes an ACR tied to EN 301 549 and evidence of ongoing conformance work. Both rely on the same underlying audit data.
The platform generates AI-assisted ACRs from audit findings, and progress reports can be exported at any point to show regulators, buyers, or internal leadership where each asset stands.
What About Ongoing Monitoring?
Audits are point-in-time. Websites and apps change constantly. Scans run inside the platform flag regressions between audits, though scans only flag approximately 25% of issues and cannot determine conformance on their own. The combination of periodic expert audits and continuous scan monitoring gives teams a working view of how each asset is trending.
For companies with EAA obligations starting June 28, 2025, this ongoing view matters. EAA is not a one-time filing. It expects continued conformance, and documentation needs to reflect that.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can one audit cover both ADA and EAA requirements?
A WCAG 2.1 AA audit covers the technical core of both. ADA does not require a specific audit format, so a thorough WCAG audit supports ADA risk reduction directly. EAA expects conformance with EN 301 549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA plus some additional criteria for certain asset types. One audit can serve as the technical foundation, with EN 301 549-specific items documented alongside.
Do we need separate ACRs for ADA and EAA?
ACRs are most commonly requested for procurement and EAA documentation. ADA does not require an ACR. For EAA, an ACR using the EN 301 549 edition is the typical format. Some companies generate a WCAG edition ACR for US customers and an EN 301 549 edition for EU procurement, both drawn from the same audit data.
How often should audits be conducted for assets covered by both regimes?
Annual expert audits are the common cadence, with additional audits triggered by major product changes or redesigns. Scan monitoring between audits catches regressions on previously fixed issues.
Can one platform track mobile apps and websites together?
Yes. Each asset becomes its own project, and the portfolio view rolls up status across web, mobile, and software. WCAG 2.1 AA applies to mobile apps as well, and EN 301 549 explicitly covers mobile applications.
Running ADA and EAA audit work on two systems doubles the overhead and introduces reporting drift. One platform keeps the audit, the remediation, and the documentation tied together, which is what both regulators and buyers expect to see.
Contact Accessibility Tracker to see how your ADA and EAA audit work maps into a single platform: Contact Accessibility Tracker.