Evidence records

documentedaccessiBe Ltd. is an Israeli company. A retained registry-data mirror identifies company number 515855302, incorporation on 3 June 2018 and a 2025 annual return. The company’s legal notice gives the same number and VAT identifier IL515855302. The FTC’s final order records its principal business address in Tel Aviv. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

qualification

The registry information is a secondary representation; the retained material does not include a current paid corporate extract or a shareholder register.

documentedThe FTC’s April 2025 final order identifies accessiBe Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal office in New York, as wholly owned by accessiBe Ltd. The complaint dates US incorporation to 2020 and New York operations to 2021. ^{2 6 7}

qualification

The ownership finding is stated in the consent order. The complaint’s broader common-enterprise and commingling allegations were not admissions by the companies. Earlier court submissions describing the Israeli company’s operations refer to an earlier period.

response

The respondents neither admitted nor denied the complaint’s allegations apart from the jurisdictional facts admitted for the proceeding.

documentedCompany announcements and business reporting consistently identify Dekel Skoop, Gal Vizel and Shir Ekerling as accessiBe’s co-founders. Their early roles were operations, commercial or marketing leadership, and executive or technical leadership, respectively. ^{8 9 10 5 11}

qualification

Titles changed over time; founder status does not establish a current executive office or an ownership percentage.

documentedThe documented funding narrative starts with K1’s announced $12 million investment in May 2020. A further $16 million brought the Series A total to $28 million in February 2021. Reporting in August 2022 described a $30 million extension led by K1, with Glilot Capital Partners and The Phoenix, bringing that round to $58 million. ^{12 9 13 14 15 16 17}

qualification

These are announced and reported financing amounts, not audited cash balances or a company valuation. The exact Phoenix investing legal entity and the investors’ percentages are not established.

documentedContemporaneous reporting identifies Nadav Dakner, Oron Yaffe, Elad Mor and Itai Elizur among earlier private investors. It dates a seed round to June 2019 and reports approximately $500,000 before the May 2020 financing. ^{13 18 17}

qualification

The retained material does not establish each investor’s amount, percentage or current holding. Later secondary sources repeat the early reporting.

documentedThe 2022 financing is reported as including The Phoenix or Phoenix Holdings. Retained disclosures identify company number 520017450 as The Phoenix Holdings Ltd. in 2023 and Phoenix Financial Ltd. in 2026. ^{19 20 21 22 11}

qualification

The shared corporate number supports the name history of that public company. It does not identify which group entity invested in accessiBe; the group label and the registered parent remain separate records.

documentedaccessiBe has published different measures of its scale: more than 25,000 websites in 2020 reporting, more than 160,000 in 2022, more than 100,000 on an undated company page and more than 85,000 in an August 2026 release. The last release also announced a second consecutive Inc. 5000 listing without disclosing revenue or the growth percentage. ^{24 14 18 25 26 27 5 28 29 11}

qualification

These company-origin counts are not a consistent audited series. They cannot establish a decline without common definitions and dates. Aggregator revenue, funding-round and intellectual-property counts remain estimates or listings rather than audited accounts or verified patent inventories.

documentedK1 identifies accessiBe in its portfolio, including on the page retained at the October 2026 cutoff. Mike Velcich commented on the investment as a K1 principal in 2020–2021 and was described in 2020 reporting as K1’s representative on accessiBe’s board. K1 also identifies Onit as a portfolio company. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

The current portfolio listing supports an investor association, not a disclosed share percentage. A secondary account calls K1’s 2021 stake minority; no shareholder register establishes current control. Velcich’s present accessiBe board mandate is not confirmed.

documentedK1’s March 2022 adviser brochure says it began operations in November 2010, was principally owned by R. Neil Malik and managed approximately $13.185 billion of client assets at 31 December 2021. It describes a general practice of board representation at portfolio companies. Later profiles describe Velcich as a partner and list earlier investment-firm roles. ^{8 9 10}

qualification

K1’s general governance rights and firmwide assets do not establish its rights, stake or investment amount in accessiBe. Secondary career profiles contain different title dates.

documentedA fund announcement identifies Kobi Samboursky and Arik Kleinstein as Glilot’s founders and managing partners. Reporting on accessiBe’s February 2021 financing names Kleinstein personally among existing investors; Glilot is separately named in the 2022 extension. ^{11 12 13}

qualification

Kleinstein’s personal investment and the fund’s investment are distinct roles. The retained records do not disclose their percentages.

documentedProfiles that also identify accessiBe investor or adviser roles link Nadav Dakner, Elad Mor and Itai Elizur to MarketAcross, InboundJunction and Chainwire. A retained Israeli trademark record identifies INBOUNDJUNCTION LTD as the owner of the MARKETACROSS mark. ^{14 15 16 17 18}

qualification

These identity and professional links do not establish that any of those businesses supplied the unnamed marketing campaign alleged by the FTC. Brand ownership is not proof of the entire corporate group’s ownership chain.

documentedaccessiBe announced Robert Lopez as CEO on 6 May 2025, succeeding Dekel Skoop. The announcement describes Lopez’s previous role as chief revenue officer at Justworks. A secondary career profile also lists earlier Groupon leadership and a short Justworks advisory period ending in December 2024. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

qualification

The appointment and prior Justworks role are company statements. The retained record establishes no personal regulatory allegation against Lopez; shared or similar names are not identity evidence.

documentedDekel Skoop’s roles progressed from co-founder and operations executive to co-CEO and then CEO. The FTC consent package identifies him as CEO of both accessiBe companies. The May 2025 succession announcement says he would remain involved in the board and strategy; the retained Guardz team page separately lists him as chief business officer. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

The public consent version has blank signature and date lines, so the named capacity is not proof of a signed date. Secondary profiles give partly overlapping early role periods. Guardz’s page does not establish his start date or the end of every accessiBe connection.

documentedSecondary company and career profiles identify Dekel Skoop and Gal Vizel as Ykey co-founders before accessiBe. The profiles describe a digital marketing business and respectively assign marketing and chief executive roles. ^{8 6 9}

qualification

No retained registry extract establishes Ykey’s ownership percentages or legal continuity with accessiBe.

documentedGuardz’s retained team page lists Dekel Skoop as CBO and identifies Glilot and Phoenix among investors. A registry-data mirror identifies Guardz Cyber Ltd., company number 516588902, incorporated in March 2022. ^{7 10 11}

qualification

Shared investors and an executive’s move do not establish a corporate transaction with accessiBe. The exact Phoenix investing entity and investment amounts remain unspecified.

documentedShir Ekerling is an accessiBe co-founder and was publicly identified as CEO or co-CEO during its early growth. In a May 2023 letter to the blind community he apologized for dismissive responses and for emphasizing avoidance of legal action in marketing. A later secondary profile records a president role from March 2024 to May 2025 and lists him among Diffi Technologies’ founders. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8}

qualification

A profile’s CEO end date in June 2022 conflicts with contemporary references to later CEO or co-CEO service. The record does not establish an exact continuous title history or a current executive role at accessiBe.

documentedGal Vizel is an accessiBe co-founder identified in contemporaneous sources in marketing and revenue leadership. A court order recounts Skoop’s evidence that Vizel was chief revenue officer and was relocating to New York. Later secondary profiles place the revenue role’s end in January 2025 and name him as a Diffi Technologies co-founder. ^{9 10 3 11 12 8}

qualification

Profile dates are secondary accounts, not corporate appointment records. His later venture does not establish a transaction or ownership relationship between Diffi and accessiBe.

documentedSecondary profiles identify Michael Farlekas as accessiBe’s chairman, with one dating the role to November 2024. A ContextLogic filing establishes his April 2024 board and lead-independent-director roles and his earlier E2open executive career. Onit announced that he would become CEO effective 1 March 2024; E2open announced his departure and Andrew Appel’s interim appointment on 10 October 2023. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

The ContextLogic filing does not mention accessiBe. Sources disagree on Onit’s start date, and the record does not show who appointed Farlekas to accessiBe’s board. His employment at companies associated with K1 does not prove a K1 appointment. Reports about E2open’s business performance are not findings of personal misconduct.

documentedaccessiBe announced Michael Hingson as chief vision officer in February 2021. His own October 2025 material continued to use that title and described his podcast as an accessiBe-sponsored initiative. His biography also records earlier work with the National Federation of the Blind and a braille-literacy ambassador role. ^{1 2 3}

qualification

These are company and personal accounts. His connection with the NFB does not make that organization responsible for, or a general endorser of, accessiBe’s products.

documentedYaniv Aronowich represented accessiBe in the 2021 K1 financing at Arnon, Tadmor-Levy. An April 2025 sponsored article identifies him as accessiBe’s chief legal officer, and a March 2026 docket entry records his citizenship declaration for accessiBe Inc. May 2026 reporting describes his move to Epstein Rosenblum Maoz after four years in accessiBe’s legal leadership. ^{4 5 6 7}

qualification

The retained records do not fix exact appointment dates. The April 2025 article was labelled sponsored content and is a company-authored interpretation of the Hidalgo case, not independent judicial analysis.

documentedDated company or media accounts identify Josh Basile in community relations, Sapir Yarden in nonprofit partnerships, Roy Gefen as CMO in 2021 and Masha Koski Zaks as VP Brand in January 2023. Other retained profiles identify Yan Kotliarsky in marketing, Gil Magen in marketing communications, Niv Penso as CTO and Haim Repael Azoulay in design. ^{8 9 10 11 12 13}

qualification

These are roles at the source dates, not a verified current management roster. A 2021 guest biography calls Gefen an early investor but gives no stake or transaction record.

documentedThe FTC issued its final consent order on 21 April 2025 and announced approval on 22 April. It requires a $1 million payment to the Commission, prohibits misleading or unsupported WCAG-compliance representations, bars misrepresentations of independent endorsements and requires disclosure of material connections. ^{6 7 8 9 3 10}

qualification

The WCAG provision allows non-misleading claims supported by competent and reliable evidence; it is not a blanket prohibition on the product or all compliance claims. The order requires payment, while the retained record does not establish actual payment or completed consumer refunds.

response

The respondents neither admitted nor denied the complaint’s allegations, apart from the jurisdictional admissions.

outcome

The January proposal became a final order following public comments. Its term is generally 20 years, subject to the order’s specified provisions.

documentedThe consent provisions require disclosure that third-party domains and subdomains are not covered unless they also use the automated product, and impose compliance reporting and recordkeeping duties. Commissioner Ferguson’s January concurrence, joined by Commissioner Holyoak, expressly took no position on whether the ADA or WCAG requires accessibility of integrated third-party domains. ^{7 2 9}

qualification

The concurrence’s limitation should not be converted into either a general accessibility exemption or a judicial interpretation of the ADA. The retained proposed-order text describes a sworn compliance report one year after issuance; no such report is present.

documentedFTC letters acknowledge supportive comments from the National Federation of the Blind, UsableNet, Accessible Web, Adrian Roselli, Lainey Feingold and Karl Groves. Some sought stronger remedies or larger monetary relief. The Commission declined additional requirements and issued the order without modification. ⁷

qualification

These letters document the comments and the FTC’s response, not agreement by all disability organizations or independent findings on every product feature.

documentedIn the proposed customer class action brought by Sherwin K. Parikh MD, P.C. (Tribeca Skin Center), Dillon Music and Safe Life Defense against accessiBe Inc., the Southern District of New York narrowed the case on 31 March 2026. Only the breach-of-contract theory concerning representations that the widget would ensure WCAG and ADA compliance survived the dismissal motion. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6}

qualification

Survival of a claim is not a finding of liability or class certification. The retained docket records an answer filed on 25 June 2026; the answer’s contents are not retained, and the docket may lag the official court file.

response

accessiBe sought dismissal and relied on its terms of service; most of the pleaded claims were dismissed.

outcome

No final merits judgment, class certification or approved $1.2 million settlement is established by the retained record.

documentedThe March 2026 court treated the plaintiffs as bound by the terms accepted through the sign-in process to the extent those terms were enforceable. It distinguished technical litigation-support materials from a legal service. It held the liability limitation unenforceable as applied to the contract claim over WCAG-compliance representations. The court also found premature accessiBe’s request to strike claimed damages above six months’ fees. ¹

qualification

Tribeca Skin Center and Safe Life lacked standing for injunctive relief by agreement because they no longer used the product; Dillon Music retained standing. That procedural distinction is not class certification.

documentedThe Parikh court noted that the FTC matter ended in a $1 million settlement without an admission of wrongdoing, but accorded the FTC action and settlement no weight except as the acknowledged source of certain allegations in the customers’ complaint. ¹

documentedRetained docket material identifies Blank Rome as counsel for accessiBe Inc. and records Aronowich’s March 2026 citizenship declaration. The court denied a June 2025 motion to disqualify lawyer Martin Krezalek. The customers later cited the separate Bloomsybox–UserWay case as supplemental authority. ^{3 5}

qualification

A docket’s administrative cause-of-action category is not a fraud finding. Use of another case as authority does not combine the proceedings or establish shared liability.

documentedThe organizational provider record identifies Sherwin K. Parikh MD PC with the trading name Tribeca Skin Center and names Sherwin K. Parikh as its authorized CEO. A procurement-data profile identifies Safe Life Defense LLC; a business profile names Nicholas Groat as its owner. Reporting separately identifies Pedro Liz’s May 2024 accessibility action against Dillon Music. ^{7 8 9 10}

qualification

These records help distinguish the customer organizations and their personnel. They do not establish the merits of the customers’ case against accessiBe.

documentedIn Erkan v. David A. Hidalgo, M.D., P.C., the court dismissed the case in January 2025 for lack of standing and mootness. The decision considered a developer’s audit, manual changes, an accessibility widget and ongoing monitoring. accessiBe’s own account presented the result as validation of accessWidget. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

qualification

The judgment does not name accessiBe or accessWidget and does not certify a branded product. The broader remediation record, rather than the widget alone, supported the mootness analysis. The company’s claim that no customer lost because of its widget is narrower than, and not disproved merely by, a denied dismissal motion.

response

The company credits its tool and litigation-support team; its marketing account remains distinct from what the judgment actually says.

outcome

The customer won dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; there was no trial determination of universal widget compliance.

documentedIn Velazquez v. The Spice & Tea Exchange Distribution, the December 2024 court rejected the client’s attempt to obtain dismissal on mootness grounds. The cited accessiBe report lacked the auditor’s qualifications, methodology and reasons supporting its compliance conclusion. ^{6 7}

qualification

accessiBe was not a party. This decision concerns the submitted proof and procedural burden in one client’s case, not a general damages judgment against the vendor.

documentedIn Batista v. PhotonLight.com, the October 2024 court found that an accessiBe audit submitted by the defendant concerned genopalate.com, not the defendant’s website. It was therefore irrelevant to the alleged barriers and insufficient to obtain dismissal. ^{6 8}

qualification

accessiBe was not a party. The wrong-site submission does not, by itself, establish whether the vendor generated the wrong document or the litigant submitted it.

documentedIn Angeles v. Grace Products, the September 2021 court declined to find the accessibility claim moot. The defendant relied on accessiBe consulting and audits, while the plaintiff’s expert described continuing barriers and a deficient report. ^{6 9}

qualification

The court held that the defendant had not met the demanding mootness burden. It did not decide every product claim or impose liability on nonparty accessiBe.

documentedOther retained docket entries connect accessiBe-related materials to customer litigation involving Urbani Truffles, SoulFlora, DL1961, American Dental Associates, Exit 9 Brooklyn, Buffalo Jackson, Pure Green, U.S. Wings and Lemongrass Holdings. Urbani Truffles sought a summons to accessiBe Inc. on a third-party claim, while DL1961 filed declarations by Shir Ekerling. ^{10 11 12 3 6}

qualification

These are individually identified procedural or product-reference records, often snippets rather than complete case files. They do not establish outcomes, causal effects of the widget or the vendor’s liability. Similar counsel names do not prove a vendor-funded defense arrangement.

documentedThe retained Litigation Pledge states that it ceased to be available for new accessWidget licenses from 15 July 2026, while eligible earlier licenses remained covered. Covered damages depend on specified final-court-decision conditions. Customer settlements and their legal fees are excluded from covered damages under the quoted settlement provision. ¹⁵

qualification

The terms also constrain settlements made without the company’s consent and call for confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. These are contractual provisions; their enforcement in a particular customer dispute is not established.

documentedaccessiBe and AudioEye litigated patent and related marketing claims in several US proceedings between 2020 and 2022. AudioEye’s 2022 annual filing records a global settlement announced on 24 October 2022 and says the three identified complaints were dismissed without prejudice. A joint patent-board filing describes a sealed settlement agreement. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

The reported mutual covenants not to sue and freedom-to-operate arrangement resolved disputes without a disclosed financial amount. Settlement and procedural venue rulings do not establish the merits of either side’s infringement or advertising allegations.

response

accessiBe defended AudioEye’s cases, asserted counterclaims and filed its own Delaware patent action.

outcome

The parties announced a global settlement; patent-board termination requests accompanied closure of the court proceedings.

documentedThe Federal Circuit denied accessiBe’s December 2021 transfer petition without prejudice to seeking reconsideration below. In March 2022 the district court granted reconsideration and transferred the AudioEye case to western New York. The venue record discussed Israeli development personnel, New York servers and offices, and claimed sales-partner activity involving BigCommerce and Volusion. ^{5 6}

qualification

These are historical venue facts and party submissions, not proof of current infrastructure or adjudicated marketing liability. All substantive disputes were later reported settled.

documentedAudioEye’s 2022 filing identifies Sero Capital as a shareholder with more than 10% and David Moradi as its sole member and AudioEye’s CEO and director. ⁴

qualification

This is context for the identified counterparty at the filing date. It establishes no ownership or management link between Moradi and accessiBe.

documentedIn UserWay Ltd. v. accessiBe Ltd., Tel Aviv case 43503-01-21, the court made an interim order on 2 March 2021 addressing comparative advertising. Continued disputed publications had to distinguish UserWay’s free products from paid products and alter specified language, including the expression “lawsuit magnet”; otherwise a temporary ban on mentioning UserWay in those publications would apply. ^{1 2}

qualification

This was an interim decision, not a final damages judgment. UserWay’s requested NIS 2.8 million was a pleaded demand. The order required UserWay security of NIS 60,000 and awarded NIS 10,000 plus VAT in legal costs; the retained OCR has reversed Hebrew segments.

response

accessiBe defended the publications as true, cited customer lawsuits and challenged UserWay Ltd.’s standing; the court rejected the standing objection while reserving merits issues.

outcome

The final outcome of the principal Israeli claim and any counterclaim is not established by the retained evidence.

documentedThe companies engaged in public competitive comparisons around the 2021 dispute. Level Access announced completion of its UserWay acquisition on 20 March 2024. UserWay’s retained 2024 reporting identifies a different material customer proceeding and does not describe an outcome of the earlier Israeli accessiBe dispute. ^{3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

Omission from a later material-litigation list could reflect completion or a materiality judgment; it does not prove a settlement or victory. UserWay’s own marketing claims are not proof of accessiBe’s product performance.

documentedThe National Federation of the Blind revoked accessiBe’s sponsorship of its 2021 convention on 22 June 2021, citing its treatment of blind people’s concerns and expertise. In May 2023 Ekerling’s letter to the community apologized for dismissive reactions and for marketing centered on avoiding lawsuits, and announced changes in the marketing team and campaigns. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

The primary statement dates the revocation to 2021; a secondary account’s 2020 date is incorrect. The apology does not establish a renewed sponsorship or NFB approval of the product.

response

The company’s later account emphasizes listening to the disability community and a change in its marketing approach.

outcome

The retained record includes the apology but does not establish restoration of convention sponsorship.

documentedHistorical company materials promoted rapid or automatic WCAG and ADA compliance and protection from accessibility lawsuits. Retained examples include 48-hour remediation claims, recurring scans, subscription onboarding messages and statements of litigation support. ^{1 15 16 17 18 19 20 13}

qualification

These are historical representations, not this publication’s certification of the product or a finding that every current page repeats them.

response

Ekerling later said the company had removed litigation-avoidance wording, and the company announced changes to its marketing.

outcome

The FTC’s final order requires non-misleading compliance representations supported by competent and reliable evidence; the July 2026 pledge change further limits which customers receive that contractual benefit.

documentedaccessiBe describes a nonprofit partnership program involving free products, marketing collaboration and support. A retained United Spinal Association page lists accessiBe among Premier Corporate Members, and The Third Place for Kids announced joining the program in April 2025. Company materials name additional disability organizations as contributors or collaborators. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

qualification

The two counterpart statements support those specific associations, not endorsement of every product claim. “Premier” is the listed category, not a demonstrated highest sponsorship tier. Company claims of 600 or 700-plus partners and $500,000 donated are not audited here.

documentedA May 2020 announcement names RealPage, BigCommerce, Volusion, WebFX and Digital Ocean among commercial partners. The later AudioEye venue record refers to BigCommerce and Volusion as strategic sales partners, and alleges financial sales incentives. ^{8 9 10}

qualification

The names identify reported commercial roles at those dates. They do not establish ownership, present contracts, responsibility for product claims or wrongdoing by the partners.

documentedA secondary US trademark listing attributes the ACCESSIBE application, serial number 88527236 filed on 22 July 2019, to ACCESSIBE LTD. Other aggregator material reports patent and trademark counts. ^{1 2}

qualification

An application serial is not a granted registration or a complete patent portfolio. The retained evidence does not verify present status, all rights holders or the scope of enforceable rights.