Yes, at least in North American and European countries, there are sufficient laws. In the U.S., there is already case law, like the Target case, that clearly es

Yes, at least in North American and European countries, there are sufficient laws. In the U.S., there is already case law, like the Target case, that clearly established that the ADA's requirements for accessibility in "places of public accommodation" apply not only to brick and mortar places but websites as well. I'm not sure why this hasn't been sufficient for people to "get it," maybe because almost all cases are settled, rather than having actual rulings, and none have been been presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. That being said, there is a need for more detailed guidance on what it means to make something accessible. For instance with video captions for the hearing impaired, is it ever okay to post a video then add the captions when they're done? Is it ever okay to post videos then add captions to each upon request; what if all the videos had automated captions, generally considered not sufficient, but could be fixed by humans upon request? If a video is of a single person speaking continuously, would a transcript be an adequate text alternative?