In December 2021, the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) filed a lawsuit against SiriusXM, alleging that the company failed to provide transcripts in its app, effectively excluding deaf and hard-of-hearing users from accessing spoken-word content. At the time, podcast transcripts were far from standard across the industry, and accessibility was often treated as an optional feature rather than a baseline expectation.
More than three years later, the legal action is still ongoing. The latest update suggests there will be no further movement until at least April this year. In the meantime, the podcast industry has changed significantly, particularly when it comes to transcription and accessibility.
The contrast between the pace of the courts and the pace of product development is striking.
A Lawsuit That Pressured an Industry
When the NAD first brought its case, it reflected a real and widespread problem. Podcasts had become a dominant form of media, yet many platforms offered little to no support for users who could not hear audio content. Transcripts, where they existed at all, were often buried on publisher websites or missing entirely.
The lawsuit put a spotlight on that gap. It also sent a clear signal to platforms, networks, and publishers that accessibility was not just a nice-to-have feature but a legal and ethical obligation. While SiriusXM was the named defendant, the implications extended well beyond a single company.
Accessibility advocates and media organizations alike pointed to the case as a test of how audio-first platforms would respond to disability rights in a digital-first era.
What Changed While the Case Dragged On
Since 2021, transcripts have moved from the margins to the mainstream of podcast distribution. Apple Podcasts has introduced in-app transcripts, making text available directly alongside episodes. Pocket Casts followed with a similar approach, and Spotify rolled out auto-generated transcripts at scale, integrating them deeply into its listening experience.
SiriusXM itself has not stood still. The company has since released a redesigned app that includes transcription functionality, addressing the core issue raised in the original complaint.
At an industry level, standards and best practices for podcast transcripts have also emerged. Publishers now routinely think about transcripts not only as accessibility tools, but as assets for search, discoverability, and audience engagement. Transcripts support SEO, make episodes skimmable, and open audio content to new use cases in education, research, and internal communications.
In practical terms, the accessibility problem that sparked the lawsuit has largely been solved by the market.
The Role of Legal Pressure
It would be difficult to argue that the NAD’s legal action was irrelevant. On the contrary, it appears to have played a meaningful role in accelerating change. The threat of legal scrutiny often has a way of focusing attention, particularly in industries that move quickly and sometimes overlook compliance in favor of growth.
The case helped push accessibility into executive conversations and product roadmaps. It also reinforced the idea that audio platforms cannot treat transcripts as optional add-ons when their content functions as mass media.
In that sense, the lawsuit was instrumental in moving the industry forward.
Who Benefits Now
The unresolved question is what the continued legal process is accomplishing today. With transcripts now live across major podcast platforms, a clearer technical standard in place, and SiriusXM offering transcription in its current app, the original accessibility gap has narrowed significantly.
Yet the case continues, with little visible impact on users or platforms as it drags through procedural stages. From the outside, it increasingly appears that the primary beneficiaries of the ongoing action are not creators, listeners, or even accessibility outcomes, but the lawyers involved.
This is not an argument against accountability or accessibility enforcement. Rather, it highlights a recurring tension in technology and media regulation: when courts move slower than innovation, legal remedies can outlast the problems they were meant to solve.
A More Accessible Podcast Ecosystem
Today’s podcast landscape is materially more accessible than it was in 2021. Transcripts are becoming an expected feature, not a differentiator. Platforms compete on how well they surface text alongside audio, and creators increasingly understand that accessibility and growth often align.
The SiriusXM case will eventually conclude, but its lasting impact may already be set. It helped push podcasting toward a more inclusive baseline. The challenge now is ensuring that future progress comes from clear standards, thoughtful design, and collaboration with accessibility communities, rather than years-long legal battles after the fact.
More about accessibility:
Staff Report
Staff Report
Staff Report
