Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Disability, Accessibility, and Civil Rights

The Accommodation Subscription: Tiered Artificial Intelligence Accessibility, Reliance, and the Nondelegable Duty in Public Education

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Legal research article.

Written
August 2026
Version
v1.0
Pages
39
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

Captions, transcripts, and synthetic speech are auxiliary aids and services. On the major educational artificial intelligence platforms they are also priced. A rudimentary version of each is distributed at no cost, and the version that actually works for a disabled student sits inside a paid edition or a paid add-on that the school district must purchase separately. This article argues that the resulting arrangement violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the hands of the purchasing district, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the hands of the vendor, and that the two conclusions are independent of one another. The argument depends on no doctrinal reform. It rests on three settled propositions: that the duty of a public entity runs through its contractual and licensing arrangements and cannot be discharged by procurement; that an auxiliary aid must be effective rather than merely present; and that a covered entity may not impose the cost of nondiscriminatory treatment on the individuals who require it. A closing Part treats, as an alternative posture, the harder case of a vendor with no physical premises, which is reachable only on a functional reading of the statutory categories. The article then identifies the harm that tiered pricing produces over time. A student is given an aid, adapts to it, and organizes their participation around it, and the aid is then withdrawn when the district cannot absorb a price increase it did not set. That withdrawal, not the initial purchase, is the actionable event, and it is a lost educational opportunity in the exact sense that the Ninth Circuit preserved from the reach of Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller in Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District.

Keywords

  • disability law
  • civil rights
  • Section 504
  • ADA Title II
  • ADA Title III
  • auxiliary aids and services
  • effective communication
  • surcharge rule
  • lost educational opportunity
  • students with disabilities
  • educational technology procurement
  • software licensing

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Accommodation Subscription: Tiered Artificial Intelligence Accessibility, Reliance, and the Nondelegable Duty in Public EducationOpen the 42-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Accommodation Subscription: Tiered Artificial Intelligence Accessibility, Reliance, and the Nondelegable Duty in Public Education." Real Safety AI Foundation Legal Research Article, August 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/tuv39x/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (67)

  1. A Free Version of ChatGPT Built for Teachers, OpenAI (Nov. 19, 2025), https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-for-teachers/.
  2. A.W. ex rel. J.W. v. Coweta County School District, 110 F.4th 1309 (11th Cir. 2024).
  3. Accessibility Features in Google for Education, Google for Education, https://edu.google.com/intl/ALL_us/our-values/accessibility/ (last visited Aug. 1, 2026).
  4. Aleksandrowicz, Paweł, The Reading Comprehension Skill of d/Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Poles and Its Importance for Media Accessibility, 2 J. Audiovisual Translation 26 (2019), https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v2i1.87.
  5. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
  6. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(1), 12181(7)(J), 12182, 12205.
  7. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.5, 300.6, 300.105, 300.111 (eCFR ed. July 24, 2026).
  8. Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002).
  9. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946).
  10. Belleflamme, Paul, Versioning in the Information Economy: Theory and Applications, 51 CESifo Econ. Stud. 329 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/51.2-3.329.
  11. Bonifacci, Paola, Elisa Colombini & Michele Marzocchi, Text-to-Speech Applications to Reduce Mind Wandering in Students with Dyslexia, 38 J. Computer Assisted Learning 440 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12624.
  12. Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Association of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994).
  13. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).
  14. ChatGPT for Teachers, OpenAI Help Center, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12844995-chatgpt-for-teachers (last visited Aug. 1, 2026).
  15. ChatGPT Voice, OpenAI Help Center, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/20001274-chatgpt-voice (last visited Aug. 1, 2026).
  16. Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.
  17. Compare Google Workspace for Education Editions, Google for Education, https://edu.google.com/workspace-for-education/editions/compare-editions/ (last visited Aug. 1, 2026).
  18. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022).
  19. Dexter, Sara, Aubrey Francisco & Christina Luke Luna, Five Leading-Edge K-12 Districts’ Decision-Making Processes for EdTech Innovations, 59 J. Educ. Administration 352 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-10-2020-0222.
  20. Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999).
  21. Duffy, Clare, Meta Is Opening a Retail Store, CNN Business (Apr. 25, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/tech/meta-facebook-store/index.html.
  22. Duprey v. Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, 28 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Conn. 1998).
  23. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
  24. Federici, Stefano & Simone Borsci, Providing Assistive Technology in Italy: The Perceived Delivery Process Quality as Affecting Abandonment, 11 Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Tech. 22 (2016), https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.930191.
  25. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
  26. Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017).
  27. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998).
  28. Glasser, Abraham, Kesavan Kushalnagar & Raja Kushalnagar, Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Perspectives on Using Automatic Speech Recognition in Conversation, in Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility 427 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3134781.
  29. Grunér, Sofia, Per Östberg & Martina Hedenius, The Compensatory Effect of Text-to-Speech Technology on Reading Comprehension and Reading Rate in Swedish Schoolchildren with Reading Disability, 33 J. Special Educ. Tech. 98 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417742898.
  30. Halmenschlager, Christine & Patrick Waelbroeck, Fighting Free with Free: Freemium vs. Piracy (2014), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2475641.
  31. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).
  32. Ivy v. Morath, 580 U.S. 956 (2016).
  33. Ivy v. Williams, 781 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2015), vacated as moot sub nom. Ivy v. Morath, 580 U.S. 956 (2016).
  34. Kafle, Sushant & Matt Huenerfauth, Evaluating the Usability of Automatically Generated Captions for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, in Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility 165 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132542.
  35. Kafle, Sushant, Peter Yeung & Matt Huenerfauth, Evaluating the Benefit of Highlighting Key Words in Captions for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, in Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility 43 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353781.
  36. Klingler v. Director, Department of Revenue, 433 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2006).
  37. Koslow v. Pennsylvania, 302 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2002).
  38. Leahy, Wayne & John Sweller, Cognitive Load Theory, Modality of Presentation and the Transient Information Effect, 25 Applied Cognitive Psych. 943 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787.
  39. Liese v. Indian River County Hospital District, 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012).
  40. Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, 154 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 1998).
  41. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007).
  42. Morgan v. Joint Administration Board, Retirement Plan of the Pillsbury Co., 268 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2001).
  43. Noel v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, 687 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2012).
  44. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.301, 36.303 (eCFR ed. July 30, 2026).
  45. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.10, 84.68 (eCFR ed. July 24, 2026).
  46. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 35.130, 35.160, 35.164, 35.200 (eCFR ed. July 30, 2026).
  47. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 34 C.F.R. pt. 104 (eCFR ed. July 24, 2026).
  48. Osterloh, Rick, Google Completes Fitbit Acquisition, The Keyword (Jan. 14, 2021), https://blog.google/products/devices-services/fitbit-acquisition/.
  49. Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999).
  50. Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, No. 24-1809 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2026).
  51. Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023).
  52. PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001).
  53. Phillips, Betsy & Hongxin Zhao, Predictors of Assistive Technology Abandonment, 5 Assistive Tech. 36 (1993), https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205.
  54. Read Along in Google Classroom Is Now Available to All Education Users to Support Foundational Literacy, Google Workspace Updates (June 25, 2026), https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/06/read-along-in-google-classroom-is-now-available-to-all-education-users-to-support-foundational-literacy.html.
  55. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
  56. Singh, Anne-Marie, Nadine Marcus & Paul Ayres, The Transient Information Effect: Investigating the Impact of Segmentation on Spoken and Written Text, 26 Applied Cognitive Psych. 848 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2885.
  57. United States Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U.S. 597 (1986).
  58. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006).
  59. USASpending.gov, Award Profile: ACOACP200000773842102042024, Google LLC, https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_ACOACP200000773842102042024_027 (retrieved Aug. 1, 2026).
  60. USASpending.gov, Award Profile: Cooperative Agreement U24OD023176, Scripps Research Institute, https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_U24OD023176_075 (retrieved Aug. 1, 2026).
  61. USASpending.gov, Recipient Profile: Fitbit LLC, Unique Entity Identifier KM48X6CALL76, https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/71af6f1c-7ca2-e970-e2fb-6ce1b39a8327-C (retrieved Aug. 1, 2026).
  62. USASpending.gov, Recipient Profile: Google LLC, Unique Entity Identifier NQV3T7DDKNT6, https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/eddf926f-f4fe-e72c-14f1-ab22d5925171-C (retrieved Aug. 1, 2026).
  63. Vestar Development II, LLC v. General Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2001).
  64. Voice Mode FAQ, OpenAI Help Center, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8400625-voice-mode (last visited Aug. 1, 2026).
  65. Wessels, Roelof, Bea Dijcks, Mathijs Soede, Lars Lyhne Gelderblom & Luc De Witte, Non-Use of Provided Assistive Technology Devices, a Literature Overview, 15 Tech. & Disability 231 (2003), https://doi.org/10.3233/tad-2003-15404.
  66. Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000).
  67. Wood, Sarah G., Jerad H. Moxley, Elizabeth L. Tighe & Richard K. Wagner, Does Use of Text-to-Speech and Related Read-Aloud Tools Improve Reading Comprehension for Students with Reading Disabilities? A Meta-Analysis, 51 J. Learning Disabilities 73 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688170.

All research