You got a letter from PTS — a Swedish accessibility response playbook

What this letter actually is

Post- och telestyrelsen runs a staged supervision programme, not a one-shot inspection. It opened a programme targeting e-commerce services on 15 October 2025 and had 28 cases open by 3 March 2026, several of them among the largest Swedish retailers. As of the current record, those cases sit in a review and request-to-remedy phase — PTS has not published a sanction decision under the accessibility act. So the letter you have is most likely a notice that your service is under review, or a specific request to remedy something PTS already found. It is not, on the public record so far, a compliance order or a sanction fee decision — though PTS does have both instruments available, and a later letter in the same case could be exactly that.

Who sent it, and what it supervises

PTS is Sweden’s designated supervisory authority under lag (2023:254) om vissa produkters och tjänsters tillgänglighet, in force since 28 June 2025. Its current staged programme is focused on e-commerce services specifically, which is the context almost every reader of this article will be responding from.

The method is public — which means it is testable before the letter arrives

The most useful fact about PTS’s process is that its method for the e-commerce cohort is not a secret. It checks three specific things on each site: the home page, one product page, and the search function. That is narrow enough to be genuinely testable in advance — before you ever hear from PTS, you can run the same three surfaces through your own accessibility review and know roughly where you stand. If a letter has already arrived, the same three surfaces are the first place to look for whatever PTS found.

What PTS can actually do, and the statutory maximum

Swedish law gives PTS two distinct instruments, and by design they are not both available for the same violation:

• A compliance order (föreläggande), which may carry a conditional fine (vite) — an amount set case by case, with no published fixed cap.
• An administrative sanction fee (sanktionsavgift) for breaches of specific substantive obligations, set at SEK 10,000–10,000,000.

The two cannot both apply to the same violation. Both figures are statutory instruments, not amounts anyone has been ordered to pay: as of the current record, PTS has not published a sanction decision under this Act.

The clock

There is no single published response window that covers every PTS letter. If your case is in the review or request-to-remedy phase, the deadline that governs is whatever your own case correspondence names — read it directly rather than assuming a standard number of days. Given that PTS’s process moves in stages (review, then request to remedy, then potentially one of the two instruments above), a slow or absent response is itself likely to move a case toward the next stage rather than being neutral.

What to send back

Because PTS’s method is specific, the most useful response answers exactly what it checks, plus the parts of your own funnel that matter for a real transaction:

• What was tested — at minimum the home page, a representative product page, and the search function, since those are the three PTS itself checks; add checkout if you sell directly, since that is the natural next question even where it is outside PTS’s published method.
• Against what standard and version — EN 301 549, naming the revision (v3.2.1 / WCAG 2.1 AA, or the v4.1.0 final draft / WCAG 2.2 AA).
• When it was tested.
• What was found, mapped to the specific surfaces named in any request-to-remedy correspondence you have received.
• A remediation plan with dates, addressing the named surfaces first rather than a sitewide rewrite with no sequencing.

If your organization is a microenterprise — fewer than 10 people and turnover or balance-sheet total under €2 million — providing services, check the EAA’s exemption for that category before anything else; it may put you outside the underlying obligation, though PTS’s own case correspondence is what actually determines whether that applies to you.

What not to do

• Do not claim conformity without evidence behind it. A statement that the site “meets WCAG” is not what PTS is asking to see.
• Do not answer with a score for the wrong surfaces. PTS names specific pages and a specific function; a sitewide average that doesn’t address the home page, the product page, or search specifically misses the actual request.
• Do not ignore the letter on the theory that no sanction has been published yet. The staged process exists precisely to move cases from review toward one of the two instruments above, and non-response does not reset that clock.

Where an EN 301 549 report fits

A conformance report scoped to exactly what PTS checks — home page, a representative product page, and search, plus checkout where relevant — generated against a named EN 301 549 revision, gives PTS the documentation its own request-to-remedy phase is asking for: what was tested, what was found, and what is being done about it, with dates. That is a materially stronger response than a general accessibility statement. See how we help, check the wider enforcement record across EU supervisory authorities, or get in touch to talk through a response scoped to your specific case.

This article is informational only, not legal advice; how to respond to a specific PTS notice is a determination for your organization and, where appropriate, your own counsel.