Colorado Legislation Targets Vendors Over Inaccessible School Technology

HB 25-1152, which has now passed the state legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature, would require technology contractors working with public schools to comply with the Colorado Office of Information Technology’s accessibility standards. Crucially, it would also require those vendors to indemnify the school districts against lawsuits resulting from inaccessible tools or platforms.

Accountability vs. Practicality

This development was highlighted by Converge Accessibility in its April 2025 legal update, where Ken Nakata raised concerns over the legal and practical implications of such clauses. While supporting stronger vendor accountability, Nakata questioned whether shifting full responsibility onto vendors, especially in cases where schools may contribute to accessibility issues through content or implementation, was a workable or fair solution.

The relevant extract from Converge Accessibility is below:

“Colorado Wants Contractors to Indemnify Schools for Inaccessible Technology

I apologize because I didn’t see this coming. Earlier this year, the Colorado legislature introduced HB 25-1152, which would require public schools in Colorado to insert a special clause requiring contractors to meet the Office of Information Technology standards—and to indemnify the school if they get sued because the technology was inaccessible. We participated actively in the rulemaking for these standards just last week, so we’re intimately familiar with what they require.

Now, it looks like HB 25-1152 passed the legislature and is heading to the governor’s desk for signature!

I’m all in favor of holding vendors’ feet to the fire because their customers (in this case, school districts) shouldn’t be expected to be experts in WCAG and digital accessibility. I don’t think, however, that a simple indemnification clause is going to work. From a practical perspective, it’s not quite so simple because, while most barriers are usually due to the vendors, some barriers can also be introduced by the customer. This comes up, for instance, when the customer adds their content and forgets to add alt text to their images. Shifting all of the costs of litigation to the vendor isn’t fair if the state or local government is partly to blame. From a legal perspective, indemnification clauses usually fail in civil rights cases, because the duty to not discriminate against people with disabilities can’t be delegated away. Contribution clauses (where each party shares in the costs based on how much they are to blame) are looked upon more favorably and makes more sense from a practical perspective too.”

Read the full article from Converge Accessibility here:

https://convergeaccessibility.com/2025/05/05/legal-update-april-2025/ (opens in a new window)