comparison
WAD vs RGAA
WAD (EU Web Accessibility Directive, European Union — public-sector bodies, 2016) and RGAA (Référentiel général d'amélioration de l'accessibilité, France, 2009) are two of the most-referenced accessibility frameworks in digital compliance. This guide compares them side by side — jurisdiction, scope, conformance approach, penalties, and how a single audit can cover both simultaneously.
What is WAD?
The EU Web Accessibility Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/2102) requires public-sector bodies in all EU member states to make their websites and mobile apps accessible per EN 301 549, with mandatory accessibility statements and a complaints mechanism — operative since September 2018 for new sites and September 2020 for all sites.
Maintainer
European Commission
Jurisdiction and enforcement
European Union — public-sector bodies. Per member state.
What is RGAA?
France's Référentiel général d'amélioration de l'accessibilité (RGAA) is the French government's national web accessibility methodology, currently at version 4.1, that operationalises EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1 AA with 106 control tests and is mandatory for public-sector and (since the EAA transposition) large-private-sector French websites.
Maintainer
DINUM (Direction interministérielle du numérique)
Jurisdiction and enforcement
France. DINUM; ARCOM for audiovisual.
WAD vs RGAA — the key differences
The principal difference is jurisdictional: WAD applies in European Union — public-sector bodies, while RGAA applies in France. WAD is maintained by European Commission; RGAA is maintained by DINUM (Direction interministérielle du numérique). The standards differ on scope, conformance grading, and penalty structure — but a well-designed accessibility programme can satisfy both simultaneously by adopting the strictest applicable requirement and cross-mapping findings.
Scope
WAD covers: Public-sector websites and intranets, Public-sector mobile apps, Documents published by public bodies. RGAA covers: Public-sector websites, Large private-sector websites (under EAA transposition).
Penalties
WAD: Per-member-state. RGAA: Up to €50,000 administrative fine.
How to comply with both at once
Adopt the stricter applicable conformance level — typically WCAG 2.2 Level AA — as your engineering baseline. Audit against that baseline once, then cross-map findings to both WAD and RGAA specific requirements. A single Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) using VPAT 2.5 INT can document both.
When you might need just one
If you operate exclusively in European Union — public-sector bodies and have no cross-border procurement exposure, you may only need WAD. The same applies in reverse for RGAA. For organisations selling cross-border, into the EU or US public sector, the safer default is to plan to both simultaneously.
Sources
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 — European Union
- RGAA 4.1 — DINUM
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Cited answers. Sourced. Updated as standards and case law change.
Is WAD stricter than RGAA?
Neither standard is uniformly "stricter" — they cover different regulatory domains. WAD is more prescriptive about public-sector websites and intranets; RGAA about public-sector websites. For organisations exposed to both, a unified WCAG 2.2 AA baseline typically satisfies the technical requirements of both.
Can a single audit satisfy WAD and RGAA?
Yes. Both standards ultimately reference WCAG-aligned criteria. A combined audit with cross-mapped findings can produce documentation acceptable to both regulators.
Which jurisdictions enforce WAD?
European Union — public-sector bodies. Per member state.
Which jurisdictions enforce RGAA?
France. DINUM; ARCOM for audiovisual.
What happens if I am not compliant with WAD?
Per-member-state
What happens if I am not compliant with RGAA?
Up to €50,000 administrative fine
Stop guessing. Get the audit a Fortune 500 a11y team would have written.
Free audit on your live URL. No sign-up. IAAP-format report. Ready in hours.
founders@accessivepath.com · +977 9851094056