In December 2025, Norway’s digital accessibility regulator announced that the operator of a major patient portal now faces daily fines of NOK 50,000 if it fails to fix outstanding accessibility issues.
The case centers on HelsaMi, a web portal used by about 425,000 residents in Mid-Norway to view medical records and manage health care. After a formal inspection, the Authority for Universal Design of ICT (Tilsynet for universell utforming av IKT) found 119 accessibility errors across 12 of 14 legal requirements for universal design of ICT.
When the original remediation deadline passed, 64 issues were still unresolved. The authority then issued a decision: fix the remaining problems by 19 December 2025, or pay NOK 50,000 per day until the remaining errors are corrected.
For organizations with global digital footprints, this is more than a local headline. It is a preview of how accessibility regulators can operate when they have clear standards, active inspectors, and the ability to impose ongoing financial penalties.
What Norway’s Inspectorate Found at HelsaMi
The inspectorate’s press release describes a pattern of issues that will be very familiar to anyone working with WCAG.
After reviewing HelsaMi earlier in 2025, the Authority for Universal Design of ICT reported:
-
119 distinct accessibility failures across 12 of 14 legal requirements for universal design of ICT
-
64 unresolved issues after the initial remediation deadline
-
17 remaining issues with moderate impact on users and 3 issues with serious consequences
The examples they highlight map directly to common WCAG failures:
-
Reflow and zoom problems
Users cannot reliably enlarge content up to 400 percent without losing information or the ability to use features. -
Form labels and error handling
Missing or unclear labels and error messages make it difficult for people to understand which fields are required and how to correct mistakes in forms. -
Low color contrast
The text does not consistently meet minimum contrast requirements, especially for people with low vision or color vision deficiencies. -
Weak keyboard focus indicators
Insufficient visible focus when navigating by keyboard makes it hard to stay oriented while moving through the site.
The authority states that these failures mean the HelsaMi website is not equally accessible to everyone and violates the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act.
They also spell out who is affected. The unresolved issues particularly harm:
-
People who are blind or have low vision
-
People with motor impairments
-
People with cognitive impairments
Some errors affect all users, including those without disabilities.
Digital Health in a Universal Design System
Norway has positioned universal design as a core principle for digital inclusion. Government guidance stresses that universal design of ICT aims to prevent digital exclusion, especially for people who are blind or visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing, or living with motor or cognitive disabilities, while improving usability for everyone.
In that context, digital health is a high-stakes environment:
-
HelsaMi provides access to sensitive health information and communication with providers.
-
Many people who use digital health services are in vulnerable life situations, which raises the risk when patient portals are difficult or impossible to use.
For a patient portal that reaches hundreds of thousands of people, meeting only part of the accessibility requirements is not enough. The regulator expects health sector organizations to have processes that:
-
Detect accessibility issues early
-
Fix issues in partnership with their vendors
-
Demonstrate ongoing work on accessibility, not a one-time effort
Shared Accountability: Local Operators and Global Vendors
The Authority for Universal Design of ICT goes out of its way to note that Epic, a major international health-IT supplier, provides the underlying system.
At the same time, the decision makes it clear that:
-
The regulation on universal design of ICT applies to both public and private entities in Norway
-
Similar rules apply across Europe through the Web Accessibility Directive (WAD) and in the United States through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The presence of a well-known global platform does not reduce local compliance obligations. The regulator expects the local operator to:
-
Hold vendors accountable for accessibility
-
Fix what can be fixed locally through configuration and markup
-
Show that identified issues are prioritized and remediated
That expectation will sound familiar to global teams that rely on third-party platforms, frameworks, or white-label digital products. Buying from a recognized vendor does not replace the need for a structured accessibility program.
How This Connects to WAD, the EAA, and Other Global Laws
Norway’s ICT accessibility rules sit under the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, supported by regulations on universal design of ICT that align to the Web Accessibility Directive (WAD) for public sector websites and apps.
Across the EU, the enforcement landscape is evolving in parallel:
-
The Web Accessibility Directive already sets mandatory accessibility requirements for many public sector digital services, mapped to WCAG.
-
The European Accessibility Act (EAA) extends obligations to many private sector digital services, including e-commerce, financial services, and key digital interfaces, with June 2025 as the main compliance deadline.
The HelsaMi decision shows what this kind of framework looks like in practice, even outside the EU:
-
Active inspections, rather than only complaint-driven responses
-
Formal decisions that describe specific breaches of accessibility law
-
Daily fines that continue until remediation is complete, not a single settlement
For global brands, this is part of a broader pattern. Regulators in different regions may use different tools, but they often share the same foundation. WCAG-based rules and the expectation that accessibility is monitored and maintained over time are central themes.
Lessons for Digital Teams Working Across Borders
This case offers several practical lessons for organizations that serve customers and patients in multiple jurisdictions.
1. Accessibility is ongoing, not a one-time audit
The Norwegian inspectorate stresses that organizations must work systematically and continuously on universal design, with routines to uncover and follow up on breaches of the rules.
That expectation is consistent with WAD, the EAA, ADA, and other national laws. Accessibility is a program, not a project.
2. Vendor risk is real, but not a defense
When critical services rely on global platforms, regulators still focus on the entity responsible for the digital experience in their jurisdiction. In the HelsaMi case, the authority criticizes both:
-
The vendor’s unresolved accessibility problems
-
The operator’s lack of ability and willingness to correct known issues
Digital teams need contracts, governance, and technical approaches that:
-
Set clear accessibility expectations for vendors
-
Allow independent testing of vendor products
-
Document how issues are prioritized and fixed
3. Automated checks are not enough
The specific failures highlighted in this case, including reflow problems, form error handling, focus management, and nuanced contrast issues, are exactly the type of problems that often require manual and assistive technology testing, not automation alone.
In highly regulated sectors such as health care and financial services, organizations are expected to show more than a scan report. They need evidence of:
-
Manual testing against WCAG success criteria
-
Testing with users of assistive technology, such as screen reader users
-
A remediation history that shows progress over time
4. Documentation and transparency matter
Under WAD, public sector organizations must publish accessibility statements. Under the EAA, businesses face comparable documentation and information obligations for many digital products and services, even if the format differs from WAD’s accessibility statement model.
Norway’s inspectorate links its decision to a formal inspection report and cites the governing regulation. That level of documentation is likely to become more common as regulators in Europe and beyond track compliance more closely.
How UsableNet Supports International Accessibility Compliance
UsableNet works with organizations that must meet accessibility requirements across North America, Europe, and other global markets, including highly regulated sectors such as health care and financial services.
If your organization serves customers or patients in Norway, the EU, or any market where enforcement of accessibility requirements is increasing, the HelsaMi case is a useful signal. Regulators are moving from guidance to active supervision, with daily fines and detailed inspection reports to match.
You can explore our European Accessibility Act (EAA) guidefor a deeper dive into EN 301 549 and member-state enforcement, or visit the European Accessibility Act (EAA) Webinar Series to hear from legal and technical experts on how to prepare your digital ecosystem for EAA-era compliance.
