The issue is not accessibility itself. I'm all for making things simpler. The issue is that the EU framework combines broad principles, partial technical references, vague proportionality requirements, and evolving judicial interpretation. In practice, that means the exact compliance boundary is often only defined by a judge during litigation, and with the website operator funding the clarification process through lawyer and court fees.
That is precisely the kind of legal environment that creates serial-litigation ecosystems like the ADA lawsuit industry in the US.
With systems becoming increasingly more complex, testing all potential code paths increases effort exponentially. With content being user-generated, not necessarily system-generated, you now technically need an editorial watchdog position that greenlights every change (if only to prevent Sally from Sales to post a meme in copy without a proper alt text, or worse, an infographic, without a wall of text describing the infographic in great detail).
And for the attacker, they only need to find one case of violation - while you need to be correct 100% of the time.
The only two ways to migitate such issues are
1. do not offer the service in Europe at all and actively prevent EUians from acessing any part of them - which becomes increasingly attractive (disclaimer: I am an EUian, unfortunately),
2. implement defensive overcompliance far beyond practical usability requirements, or
3. accept ongoing legal uncertainty and budget for it accordingly.
Unfortunately, "just build reasonable software and trust common sense" is not a stable legal strategy anymore.
