By Stephen Fishburn in AI Accessibility —

Breaking Barriers: The Legal Case for AI Cognitive Accessibility

When ChatGPT gives you a recipe, it's usually a dense block of text that neurotypical users might easily navigate. But as someone with ADHD, I see something very different: a wall of words that's overwhelming, confusing, and unusable—it's systematic discrimination.

How a groundbreaking legal framework backed by working technology could transform digital equity for millions of Americans

When ChatGPT gives you a recipe, it's usually a dense block of text that neurotypical users might easily navigate. But as someone with ADHD, I see something very different: a wall of words that's overwhelming, confusing, and ultimately unusable. This isn't just poor design—it's systematic discrimination.

The Hidden Crisis in AI Accessibility

Artificial intelligence now permeates every essential service—from healthcare portals and educational platforms to government benefits and job applications. But for the estimated 50-65 million Americans with cognitive disabilities, these systems create barriers not through explicit policy, but through designs built solely for neurotypical patterns of thinking.

AI today decides who gets medical advice, job interviews, or government assistance. When these systems fail to accommodate diverse cognitive needs, they're not just inconvenient—they violate fundamental civil rights.

Moreover, these barriers impact entire families, like mine. My son, who has dyspraxia and dysgraphia, faces unnecessary obstacles navigating educational resources, healthcare instructions, and critical life skills. These systemic exclusions place undue burdens on families struggling to ensure their loved ones have equal opportunities and dignity.

Not Just Theory: Proof That Accessibility Works

Most disability rights cases argue from legal theory and moral imperatives alone. This case is different. As someone with ADHD, and the parent of a child with dyspraxia and dysgraphia, I didn't just identify this problem—I solved it. I built a working AI cognitive accessibility system that proves these accommodations aren't just possible, they're straightforward to implement.

Here's what the difference looks like:

Standard AI Recipe Response:
A dense paragraph combining ingredients, timing, and techniques optimized for neurotypical users.

Accessible Recipe Response (My AI System):

  1. Gather ingredients: 2 cups flour, 1 cup sugar, 3 eggs.
  2. Heat oven: Set to 350°F, wait until preheated.
  3. Mix dry ingredients: Combine flour and sugar in a large bowl.
  4. Add wet ingredients: Beat eggs into mixture one at a time.
  5. Bake: Bake for 25-30 minutes, until golden brown.

The difference isn't subtle—it's transformative. Testing showed users with cognitive disabilities achieved 40-60% higher completion rates, maintained their dignity, and gained genuine independence.

Technical Simplicity: Introducing the SIR Framework

My system uses the Structure, Intent, Regulation (SIR) framework:

  • Structure: Clear formatting, logical sequencing, visual hierarchy.
  • Intent: Literal language, explicit purpose statements.
  • Regulation: Cognitive load management, pacing, and frictionless error recovery.

I didn't need a large team or millions of dollars—just standard web development practices (React, JSON profiles, structured prompting) that major AI companies already use for personalization.

If one developer with ADHD can implement accessibility in months, billion-dollar AI companies can't credibly argue it's impossible.

This isn’t just about designing better interfaces. My legal brief positions cognitive accessibility as a fundamental constitutional right, explicitly leveraging existing civil rights precedents:

  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Courts consistently mandate "functional equivalence" for digital interfaces, something current AI systems systematically fail.
  • Equal Protection (14th Amendment): When companies have the technical means but consciously refuse to implement accommodations, courts recognize it as intentional discrimination.

AI companies currently employ sophisticated personalization technology commercially—but systematically exclude cognitive accessibility. That's not oversight; it's intentional exclusion.

Historical Parallels: Digital Civil Rights Moment

This situation mirrors America’s historical struggles with discrimination:

  • Digital Redlining: Facially neutral technologies systematically excluding protected groups.
  • Algorithmic Jim Crow: Forcing cognitive minorities to conform to majority-designed systems.
  • Separate but Unequal: Segregating users onto inferior platforms violates integration principles established by landmark civil rights cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

Industry Pathway: Implementing Accessibility Now

This legal strategy moves systematically through:

  1. Section 504 Actions: Enforcing cognitive accessibility in federally funded government services.
  2. ADA Title III Enforcement: Expanding compliance into commercial AI systems using established digital accessibility precedents.
  3. Constitutional Challenges: Establishing cognitive diversity protection under the Equal Protection Clause.

Immediate Steps for AI Companies

  • Deploy user preference systems for cognitive accessibility.
  • Adapt structured response formatting based on user profiles.
  • Provide dignified functional labels ("Focus Mode," "Clear Reading"), avoiding medical disclosure.

Reality Check: The Costs Are Minimal

  • Estimated costs: $50,000-$200,000 per major AI system.
  • Benefits: Immediate market expansion (50+ million users), higher user engagement, legal risk reduction.

Broader Implications: Inclusion Beyond Compliance

Cognitive accessibility is more than just a compliance requirement—it’s a competitive advantage. Accessible designs improve usability universally, opening new markets and strengthening user retention. With early adoption, AI companies can lead in global standards, setting benchmarks for inclusion worldwide.

The technology exists. The law demands it. The urgency is undeniable.

As someone with ADHD who personally knows the barriers imposed by inaccessible AI, I've proven the solution exists, works, and scales. AI companies now face a clear choice: proactively implement cognitive accessibility, or face inevitable legal mandates backed by working technology and established constitutional law.

This case isn’t just about disability—it’s about defining civil rights in the digital age.

TL;DR

Ready to dive deeper? The complete legal framework, including technical documentation, empirical evidence, and comprehensive case law analysis, is available in the full brief: AI Systems and Cognitive Discrimination: A Legal Framework with Empirical Evidence. This 12-section document provides everything needed for legal practitioners, disability rights advocates, policymakers, and AI companies to understand both the scope of current discrimination and the clear pathway to compliance. The brief includes working system demonstrations, detailed defense rebuttals, judicial enforcement frameworks, and economic analysis that transforms this from advocacy into actionable legal strategy. Whether you're building a case, developing policy, or implementing accessibility features, this brief provides the roadmap for ensuring AI serves all Americans equally.