Skip to main content
Simkins & Elgazar
Contact us

Council Meeting Video Under Title II: Captions Rules

Title II requires WCAG 2.1 AA: captions for recorded and live meeting video. DOJ set no accuracy number, but auto captions alone are risky.

By Ahmed Elgazar. Published . 7 min read.

Topics: ADA Title II, captions, public meetings, WCAG 2.1, video accessibility

The Title II web rule requires WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA, which means captions on recorded meeting video (SC 1.2.2), captions on live-streamed meetings (SC 1.2.4) and audio description for prerecorded video (SC 1.2.5). DOJ did not set an accuracy percentage and did not require human captioners. It left the method to each public entity, while noting that W3C guidance says automatic captions are not sufficient on their own unless confirmed fully accurate.

This is general information, not legal advice.

What does WCAG 2.1 require for meeting video?

Three success criteria apply to video that has sound, and a fourth applies to the player. The dates are April 26, 2027 for entities of 50,000 or more people, and April 26, 2028 for smaller entities and special districts (28 CFR 35.200(b)).

CriterionLevelWhat it requires
1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)ACaptions for all prerecorded audio content in synchronized media
1.2.4 Captions (Live)AACaptions for all live audio content in synchronized media
1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded)AAAudio description for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media
1.4.2 Audio ControlAIf audio plays automatically for more than 3 seconds, a way to pause, stop or control its volume

WCAG defines "live" as information captured from a real-world event and transmitted with no more than a broadcast delay. "Prerecorded" is information that is not live. So a council meeting streamed in real time falls under 1.2.4, and the same meeting posted afterward as a recording falls under 1.2.2 and 1.2.5.

W3C says captions should include more than dialogue. They identify who is speaking and notate sound effects and other significant audio.

What does DOJ say about live meetings?

DOJ's preamble to the 2024 rule addresses live captioning directly. Four points matter:

  • Live captioning gets the same compliance date as every other WCAG 2.1 criterion. DOJ declined to set a later date for it.
  • DOJ listed the kinds of live content commenters said public entities offer, including town hall, board and other public engagement meetings, and told entities to use WCAG's own explanation and definitions of the terms in 1.2.4 to decide what must be captioned.
  • DOJ chose not to prescribe "a numerical accuracy standard, a method of captioning," or other measures beyond WCAG 2.1 Level AA, because the technology is changing quickly.
  • Entities keep the fundamental alteration and undue burden provisions in 28 CFR 35.204. Even then, DOJ said, an entity must still comply with 35.200 to the maximum extent possible.

Under 35.204, the decision that compliance would cause such a burden must be made by the head of the public entity or a designee, after considering all available resources, and must come with a written statement of reasons. The entity carries the burden of proof.

Are automatic captions enough?

The rule does not say yes or no. DOJ said it recognized commenters' concerns that automatic captions are "currently not sufficiently accurate in many contexts," including technical or complex subjects. It also noted that informal W3C guidance says automatic captions are not sufficient on their own unless they are confirmed to be fully accurate, and that they generally need editing.

W3C's page says automatically generated captions do not meet user needs or accessibility requirements unless they are confirmed to be fully accurate. It also allows that they can serve as a starting point for accurate captions and transcripts.

DOJ also recognized the cost and supply problems with professional live captioners, and said a requirement to use them for every event could discourage entities from holding services online. So the rule sets no accuracy number, the method is your choice, and an unreviewed auto-caption feed on a meeting about zoning variances or budgets is hard to defend as accurate. For a recording, you have time to correct the captions before or soon after posting. For live meetings, that decision comes down to which meetings carry the most risk and what you can staff.

Do old meeting recordings need captions?

Not necessarily, and the exceptions are narrow.

The preexisting-content exception in 35.201(b) covers "conventional electronic documents." Section 35.104 defines that term as web content in PDF, word processor, presentation and spreadsheet file formats, and its definition of "web content" lists videos and conventional electronic documents as separate examples. A video file is not one of the listed formats, so on that wording the exception does not reach meeting recordings. Confirm this reading with counsel before you rely on it.

The archived web content exception can apply, but only if all four conditions in 35.104 are met:

  • It was created before your compliance date (or reproduces older paper or other physical media).
  • It is retained exclusively for reference, research or recordkeeping.
  • It is not altered or updated after archiving.
  • It is organized and stored in a dedicated area clearly identified as archived.

A recording sitting in the same video library as current meetings does not meet the fourth condition. Recordings of meetings held after your compliance date are not preexisting content at all.

DOJ heard concern that entities might delete past hearings and sessions rather than caption them. It recommended that entities consider other cost-saving options, such as checking whether any exception applies, and noted that the fundamental alteration and undue burden provisions are available where the entity can meet their requirements.

How do you test a meeting video player?

Run through this on the live page.

  • Captions can be turned on, and the control works from the keyboard alone (SC 2.1.1, Level A).
  • Captions match the audio, name speakers and include meaningful non-speech sounds.
  • Live streams have a live captioning source that is actually running, tested before the meeting starts.
  • Recordings are captioned, and the captions are reviewed for names, motions, ordinances and numbers.
  • Where important information is shown only visually (a slide, a map, a vote tally on screen), audio description or an equivalent is provided (SC 1.2.5).
  • Nothing plays sound automatically for more than 3 seconds without a way to pause, stop or lower it (SC 1.4.2).
  • Player controls have programmatically determinable names and roles (SC 4.1.2) and sufficient contrast against their background (SC 1.4.11, 3:1).

What has a court said about uncaptioned government meeting video?

This is a public case, not one of our engagements. In National Association of the Deaf v. Florida (11th Cir., Nov. 10, 2020), a deaf Florida resident and the National Association of the Deaf sued over videos of state legislative proceedings. The court described the dispute this way: the Senate and House "each have websites that provide livestreaming of proceedings, as well as archived footage of past proceedings," and plaintiffs allege the defendants failed "to put closed captions on both live and archived videos," so people who are deaf and hard of hearing "could not comprehend those videos." The court recounts that a 2017 letter requesting captioning got no response and no captions. At this early stage the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motions to dismiss, which rested largely on sovereign immunity, so it did not decide the merits. The court also recounts that the district court "noted that adding captions was unlikely to be burdensome, and if it was, Defendants could assert Title II's affirmative defense of undue burden." This is a state legislature, not a city council, and it predates the 2024 rule, but the facts (livestream plus archive, no captions, a request ignored) are the ones a council video page presents.

If you want your meeting video pages checked against WCAG 2.1 AA before your date, see our accessibility audit service.

Sources

Talk to a principal.

Small, direct and responsive. Both principals do the work on every project; no layered overhead.

Send a messageDownload the capabilities statement