EAA fines, penalties and sanctions — Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden
Each EU member state sets its own penalty regime. Here is what enforcement looks like in the three markets where active enforcement is most advanced.
The European Accessibility Act requires member states to establish penalties that are "effective, proportionate and dissuasive." What that means in practice varies significantly by country. This guide covers the three markets where UA operates and where enforcement activity is most advanced.
| Country | Maximum penalty | Criminal sanctions | Enforcement authority | Active enforcement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ireland | €60,000 (on indictment) | Yes — up to 18 months imprisonment | ComReg (telecoms/digital services); CCPC (products) | Yes — ComReg processing complaints including against Three |
| Netherlands | €900,000 or 10% of annual turnover | No | ACM (Authority for Consumers and Markets); AFM (financial services) | Yes — ACM conducting active audits; penalty decisions expected mid-2026 |
| Sweden | SEK 10,000,000 (~€900,000) | No | PTS (Post and Telecom Authority); Konsumentverket (products) | Yes — 28 supervisory investigations launched including H&M, IKEA, Coop |
Ireland
Ireland is the only EU member state with criminal penalties for EAA non-compliance. Under S.I. No. 636/2023, serious or persistent non-compliance can be prosecuted as a criminal offence. On summary conviction: a fine up to €5,000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months. On conviction on indictment (higher courts): a fine up to €60,000 and/or imprisonment up to 18 months.
Crucially, where a company commits an offence, directors, managers, secretaries, and other officers can be held personally liable. The liability follows the individuals whose decisions or neglect contributed to the non-compliance.
There is a due diligence defence available: a defendant who can demonstrate they exercised due diligence may have a case against the charge. Documented accessibility management — assessments, remediation records, governance processes — is the evidence that supports this defence.
ComReg is already processing formal complaints, including one against Ireland's largest mobile operator. Irish regulators review the accessibility statement first in any complaint investigation.
Netherlands
The Dutch ACM can impose fines up to 10% of annual turnover, with a ceiling of €900,000. The ACM is conducting active audits of organisations that failed to report non-conformance by the October 2025 deadline. Penalty decisions are expected mid-2026.
The Netherlands has a mandatory reporting requirement that most organisations have missed: organisations must proactively report their accessibility compliance status to the ACM, with documentation and a compliance declaration ready on request. Failure to report, or submitting an incomplete report, prioritises an organisation for audit.
For financial services organisations, the relevant authority is the AFM, with the same enforcement mandate and penalty ceiling.
Sweden
The PTS has launched 28 supervisory investigations, including named inspections of H&M, IKEA, and Coop. Sweden's maximum penalty of SEK 10,000,000 (approximately €900,000) places it among the highest in Europe.
Sweden operates two distinct fine types. A Sanktionsavgift — a formal requirements fine of SEK 10,000 to SEK 10,000,000 per occurrence — applies to organisations that fail to report to or cooperate with PTS. This fine is triggered by non-cooperation regardless of whether the underlying accessibility issues have been fixed. A Vite applies to accessibility issues that have not been remediated within a grace period set by PTS. An organisation can face both simultaneously.
Sweden's disability rights culture means consumer awareness is high and complaints arrive quickly. Disability organisations are well-organised and actively monitoring digital services for EAA compliance. Penalty decisions are expected throughout 2026.
PTS also has market ban authority: it can prohibit the sale or distribution of non-compliant products and services within Sweden. For many organisations, a market ban represents a more severe consequence than a fine — losing access to the Swedish market, even temporarily, can mean significant revenue loss regardless of the financial penalty imposed.
The EAA applies where the service is offered, not where the company is headquartered. A US company selling to Dutch consumers is subject to ACM enforcement. A UK company selling to Irish consumers is subject to ComReg enforcement.
Germany
Germany's BFSG (Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz) implementation is notable for its private enforcement mechanism. Under German competition law (UWG), any competitor or law firm can send an Abmahnung — a private warning letter demanding compliance, legal costs, and a signed declaration — without any regulator being involved. The Bundesnetzagentur can separately impose fines of up to €100,000 per violation. See our BFSG enforcement guide for detail.
Criminal sanctions and market bans
Not all EAA enforcement consequences are financial penalties. Two of the three Phase 1 markets have enforcement mechanisms that go significantly further.
Ireland — criminal sanctions. Ireland is the only EU member state where EAA non-compliance can result in a criminal conviction. This is a criminal sanction in the full legal sense: it goes on record, it carries a custodial sentence, and it attaches to individuals rather than the corporate entity. Directors, managers, secretaries, and other officers can be prosecuted personally. A fine and 18 months' imprisonment are the maximum penalties on conviction on indictment. This is not a regulatory fine — it is a criminal sanction.
Sweden — market ban authority. PTS has the power to prohibit the sale or distribution of non-compliant products and services within Sweden. A market ban is a sanction that operates independently of financial penalties. For a company with meaningful Swedish revenue, losing market access — even temporarily — can represent a greater commercial impact than the Sanktionsavgift ceiling of SEK 10,000,000. PTS can apply both a financial penalty and a market ban simultaneously.
Netherlands — immediate penalties. For egregious or repeated violations, the ACM can apply immediate financial penalties without a grace period. The mandatory reporting framework — in effect since October 2025 — means that organisations which have not reported are already in a position of non-compliance, which can trigger escalated enforcement action.
The distinction matters: when people search for "EAA sanctions" they are often looking for these non-financial consequences. The answer is that Ireland has criminal sanctions, Sweden has market ban sanctions, and all three markets have financial penalties. All three are active.
Find out where you stand
One conversation gives you a clear picture of your legal position, your biggest risks, and what a proportionate first step looks like. No obligation.
Book your free assessmentFor a focused guide to criminal sanctions and market bans specifically, see EAA sanctions — criminal liability and market bans.