Reference
State accessibility requirements for government vendors
One page per state, built around the question a contractor actually has: does this apply to the buyer in front of me, and what do they want from me? Every claim links the primary source it was read from, with the date it was read.
The coverage column is the one to read first. Several of these instruments bind state agencies only and are routinely quoted at cities and school districts that they do not reach — which is a bad look in front of a procurement officer who knows their own state's law. For the cross-state comparison and the states not yet written up individually, see the state-law map.
| State | Coverage | What it comes down to |
|---|---|---|
| Virginia | Local too | The only state on this list that will not accept a VPAT you filled out yourself. |
| Washington | State only | As of July 1, 2026 Washington requires WCAG 2.2 AA — and lets an agency cut a contract for misstating accessibility. |
| California | Conditional | The one statute that puts a duty on the contractor by name, not on the agency. |
| Illinois | State only | Real vendor language and a real VPAT request — and it does not touch a single Illinois city or school district. |
| New York | State only | A rolling WCAG reference and a January 1, 2027 date — with a public progress report as the fallback. |
| Minnesota | State only | The statute still names WCAG 2.0 — read the current state standard before you promise anything. |
| Texas | State only | The new law never says “vendor.” The old rules it points at have expected a VPAT from you since 2020. |
Not here, and why
The states this page deliberately does not cover
A missing state usually means one of two things: nobody has written it up, or the claim everyone repeats does not survive being checked. Here it means the second, and which one it is per state is written down.
Oregon
Oregon appears on several published lists of states with digital-accessibility procurement requirements, and we could not put a primary source behind that. Oregon’s Enterprise Information Services accessibility guidance describes the federal Title II rule and its April 26, 2027 date rather than an independent Oregon standard, and HB 3311 (2023) — which surfaces in searches for Oregon accessibility legislation — is a land-use bill about accessible housing units, not digital accessibility. Until a primary Oregon instrument turns up, we would rather say so than repeat the list.
Colorado
Colorado has a real and unusually aggressive regime — HB21-1110, C.R.S. § 24-34-802 and the technology accessibility rules at 8 CCR 1501-11 — and it reaches local government, which makes it directly relevant here. It is not written up on this page yet because the Office of Information Technology’s rule pages were not reachable for direct verification during this pass, and Colorado is a private-right-of-action state where getting a detail wrong is expensive. The cross-state overview covers it in the meantime.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts runs its requirements through executive order and EOTSS enterprise standards rather than a statute, including an explicit ban on using accessibility overlays to satisfy the requirement. It is covered in the cross-state overview and is queued for a page of its own once the current standards document is verified directly.
Whichever state asks, the answer is a dated record
BidShield ADA's Contractor's Defense Bundle gives you a dated, exportable WCAG 2.1 AA structural-scan and audit-defense log for $299. Not a compliance certification — a defensible record.
Get StartedThis page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified legal counsel for guidance specific to your situation.