> billboard or newspaper ad also had to be distributed in braille. The law doesn't require fundamentally altering a product and it doesn't require unreasonable

> billboard or newspaper ad also had to be distributed in braille. The law doesn't require fundamentally altering a product and it doesn't require unreasonable accommodations. The difference between an accessible and inaccessible website in terms of cost and effort, especially when set as an up-front expectation, is much smaller. A marketing website exists to serve some purpose, what purpose could there be that would only be relevant to people who don't have disabilities? That doesn't mean everything on a site has to be accessible to everyone, there can be inaccessible "fluff" meant to make customers feel good about a brand while still allowing all users perform the important tasks like reading information about upcoming sales, details about products, contact information, etc. No one's going to sue over a glamour shot having bad or not alt text.