What happens when your bank branch closes and forces you online, when government services exist only through apps, when paying your utility bill requires a smartphone? For millions of people—especially older adults, people with disabilities, and those in rural areas—this isn't a hypothetical scenario. It's everyday life. And increasingly, lawmakers are saying: enough.

A quiet legal revolution is underway. From France to the European Union, from disability rights organizations to accessibility lawsuits in the United States, a new framework is emerging that challenges a fundamental assumption of the digital age: that everyone can and should adapt to an all-digital world. These "right to analog" laws flip that assumption on its head, insisting instead that essential services must adapt to accommodate those who can't or won't go fully digital.

Elderly woman struggling to use smartphone banking app at home
Millions of older adults face barriers when essential services move to digital-only platforms

The Digital Exclusion Crisis

The numbers tell a stark story. Recent research reveals that between 23% and 29% of U.S. older adults lack access to digital devices, while a staggering 57% to 64% don't use digital technology for health communication. That's not a small fringe—it's tens of millions of Americans.

The problem extends far beyond the United States. Digital exclusion among older adults ranges from 21.1% in Denmark to an astonishing 96.9% in China, according to a comprehensive study analyzing data from 122,242 participants across 24 countries. These aren't just statistics about inconvenience. The same research found a direct link between digital exclusion and increased rates of depression among elderly populations.

For digitally excluded populations, when essential services go digital-only, it's not about preference—it's about basic survival and dignity.

Think about what happens when essential services go digital-only. You can't check your bank balance. You can't pay your electric bill. You can't schedule a doctor's appointment or renew your driver's license. For digitally excluded populations, it's not about preference—it's about basic survival and dignity.

France Leads the Charge

France became a pioneer in 2023 by passing legislation that requires businesses to maintain analog customer service options. This wasn't just a symbolic gesture. The law recognizes that access to essential services shouldn't depend on owning a smartphone or having reliable internet access.

The French approach emerged from a broader adaptation of European Union digital governance frameworks. In April 2024, France adopted the SREN Bill, which broadened the territorial reach of the country's Data Protection Act and aligned French law with the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). These regulations, which became effective in early 2024, impose new obligations on digital platforms while simultaneously acknowledging the need for offline alternatives.

What makes the French model particularly interesting is its recognition that digital transformation and consumer choice aren't mutually exclusive. You can innovate digitally while still maintaining human-staffed phone lines, physical branches, and paper forms. The law doesn't ban digital services—it simply insists they can't be the only option.

Modern bank offering both digital self-service kiosks and traditional teller windows
French legislation requires businesses to maintain both digital and analog service options

The EU's Expanding Framework

The European Union has taken a multipronged approach that indirectly supports analog access rights. Starting February 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act expanded beyond the largest online platforms to apply to all internet service providers within the EU. While the DSA primarily focuses on content moderation, transparency, and consumer protection in digital spaces, it establishes an important principle: digital services carry responsibilities to their users.

More directly relevant is the work of disability rights organizations. The European Disability Forum passed a resolution specifically calling for a "right to offline access to essential services." Their argument is straightforward: when services become digital-only, they create accessibility barriers that violate existing EU legislation protecting people with disabilities.

The EDF resolution highlights specific concerns about banking, healthcare, government services, and utilities. It notes that while digital services can enhance accessibility for some disabled people, they create insurmountable barriers for others—particularly those with cognitive disabilities, visual impairments incompatible with screen readers, or motor disabilities that make touchscreen navigation impossible.

The American Landscape: Accessibility Lawsuits and Federal Mandates

The United States has approached the issue differently, primarily through disability rights litigation and federal accessibility requirements rather than explicit "right to analog" legislation.

Digital accessibility lawsuits have surged in recent years, with thousands of cases filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While these lawsuits typically demand that digital services become accessible to people with disabilities, they indirectly support the broader principle: organizations can't simply abandon analog channels if doing so excludes protected populations.

Financial services firms have faced particular scrutiny. Legal experts note an uptick in ADA website accessibility litigation, along with increased regulatory attention from agencies like the Department of Justice. Local governments have also been hit with mounting ADA non-compliance fines as they rush to digitize services without ensuring equal access.

Interestingly, the U.S. has also moved in the opposite direction in some contexts. A recent executive order mandated that federal payments go paperless, requiring recipients to accept electronic disbursements rather than paper checks. This mandate has sparked debate about whether forcing digitization, even with efficiency goals, undermines the rights of those who lack bank accounts or prefer paper records.

"Digital access is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty."

— India's Supreme Court

India offers another perspective. In a landmark decision, India's Supreme Court ruled that digital access is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. While this might seem to support digital-only services, the court actually emphasized inclusive digital access—meaning services must be accessible to all, which implicitly requires alternatives for those who cannot access digital platforms.

Hands holding smartphone, paper form, and phone representing different service access methods
The right to analog means genuine choice in how people access essential services

Who Gets Left Behind?

Understanding who benefits from analog rights requires looking at the specific populations most affected by digital-only policies.

Older adults form the largest group. Beyond the access statistics mentioned earlier, there's a cognitive dimension. Even among older adults who own digital devices, actual usage remains limited by factors beyond mere availability. These include discomfort with technology, concerns about security and privacy, physical challenges like poor eyesight or arthritis, and simply preferring human interaction for important transactions.

The demographic profile is consistent across studies: older adults with lower education, lower income, from rural areas, and from racial and ethnic minorities are significantly more likely to experience digital exclusion. This isn't random—it reflects decades of systemic inequalities that digital transformation risks amplifying rather than reducing.

People with disabilities face particular challenges. While some digital tools enhance accessibility—screen readers for the blind, voice controls for those with motor impairments—others create new barriers. Websites designed without accessibility in mind, touchscreen-only interfaces, apps that require fine motor control, and purely visual verification systems all exclude people with various disabilities.

Crucially, disability is diverse. A solution that works brilliantly for one person may be useless for another. That's why mandating only digital access, even if technically "accessible," can still be discriminatory. Some people simply need to interact with a human being, either in person or via phone.

Rural populations face infrastructure barriers. Despite improvements, significant gaps remain in rural broadband access. Even where internet technically exists, it may be too slow, too unreliable, or too expensive for practical use. When an essential service moves online, rural residents may find themselves driving hours to a library with public internet—hardly an improvement over in-person service.

Low-income individuals often lack devices, reliable internet, or both. While smartphones are increasingly common, data plans aren't universal, and using a tiny phone screen to navigate complex government forms or banking transactions isn't realistic for many tasks. The assumption that "everyone has a smartphone" reflects privilege, not reality.

The Business Perspective: Compliance Challenges

While analog rights legislation protects consumers, it creates genuine challenges for businesses and government agencies.

Maintaining parallel analog and digital systems costs money. Physical branches require real estate, utilities, and staff. Call centers need trained employees who can handle complex queries. Paper forms must be printed, processed, and stored. These costs are real, and they're exactly why many organizations pushed to go digital-only in the first place.

The expansion of the EU's Digital Services Act illustrates the compliance burden. Smaller internet service providers now face transparency reporting requirements, content moderation obligations, and the need to appoint EU legal representatives. Adding analog alternatives on top of these digital compliance costs creates a potential squeeze, particularly for smaller organizations.

There's a paradox: stricter digital regulations might actually push some organizations toward digital-only models as a cost-saving strategy.

There's also a paradox: stricter digital regulations might actually push some organizations toward digital-only models. If maintaining both systems becomes too expensive or complex, companies might choose to exit certain markets or restructure services in ways that ultimately reduce consumer choice.

Larger corporations, however, have generally managed the transition. Banks, for instance, have closed thousands of physical branches but still maintain phone banking and, in many cases, limited in-person services. The question isn't whether dual systems are possible—clearly they are—but rather who bears the cost and how it's distributed.

Customer service representative assisting elderly client with paper forms in office
Effective analog access means genuinely usable alternatives, not token inconvenient options

Arguments For and Against Analog Rights

The case for analog rights rests on several pillars:

Equity and accessibility: Essential services should be available to everyone, regardless of digital capability. If healthcare, banking, and government services are fundamental to modern life, access can't depend on owning devices or mastering technology.

Autonomy and choice: People should have the right to choose how they interact with important institutions. Some prefer digital convenience; others value human interaction, fear security breaches, or simply don't trust computers with sensitive matters. Individual autonomy suggests both preferences deserve accommodation.

Protection against exclusion: Digital-only policies risk creating a two-tier society where those without digital access face progressively worsening barriers to participation. Laws mandating analog alternatives prevent this dystopian outcome.

Proven health impacts: Research linking digital exclusion to depression and reduced self-rated health among older adults suggests this isn't merely about inconvenience. Access to services through preferred channels has measurable effects on wellbeing.

The case against (or for more limited analog requirements) includes:

Efficiency and cost: Digital services are genuinely cheaper to operate and can serve more people with fewer resources. In an era of budget constraints, forcing dual systems might mean fewer resources for service quality or breadth.

Environmental benefits: Digital transactions use less paper, require less transportation, and have a smaller carbon footprint than maintaining extensive physical infrastructure.

Security and accuracy: Digital systems reduce certain types of errors and fraud, create automatic audit trails, and can incorporate sophisticated security measures difficult to replicate in paper-based systems.

Technological progress: Requiring indefinite maintenance of analog systems might slow innovation or create perverse incentives that ultimately harm consumers by preventing beneficial modernization.

Temporary vs. permanent solution: Some argue that digital exclusion will naturally decrease as younger, more digitally native generations age, making permanent analog mandates unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

Global Perspectives and Cultural Differences

How societies approach the digital-analog balance reflects deeper cultural values and technological development stages.

Nordic countries, with near-universal internet access and high digital literacy, have generally embraced digital-first government services while maintaining safety nets. Denmark's relatively low 21.1% elderly digital exclusion rate reflects both infrastructure investment and cultural comfort with technology. Yet even there, accessibility advocates push for offline options.

Asian economies show dramatic variation. China's 96.9% elderly digital exclusion rate reflects rapid technological change that left older generations behind, combined with aggressive digitization of payment systems and services. Japan, conversely, has maintained more analog options despite high technological sophistication, reflecting cultural respect for elderly preferences.

The United States has taken a fragmented approach, with accessibility mandates creating de facto analog rights for protected classes but no comprehensive framework. This reflects American federalism and reliance on courts rather than proactive legislation.

The European Union is moving toward the most comprehensive framework, balancing digital innovation with strong consumer protection and disability rights traditions. The combination of the Digital Services Act, national laws like France's analog access requirements, and disability advocacy creates a multi-layered system that's complex but arguably more protective of consumer choice.

Developing nations face different challenges entirely. Many leapfrogged traditional infrastructure to go mobile-first, but this created new exclusions for those outside the mobile ecosystem. The debate isn't analog versus digital so much as universal access versus exclusion.

People of different ages accessing government building through accessible entrance
Global legislation increasingly recognizes that essential services must accommodate diverse needs

Implementation in Practice

What does analog access look like in the real world?

Banking provides clear examples. While thousands of bank branches have closed, major banks maintain phone banking services with human representatives, accept mailed paper checks, and provide ATMs that don't require smartphone apps. Some have created "hybrid" branches with both digital kiosks and human staff who assist customers uncomfortable with technology.

Government services vary widely. Some agencies have implemented "digital navigators"—staff who help people use online services in person. Others maintain paper form options while encouraging digital submission. Motor vehicle departments, tax authorities, and social services agencies typically offer multiple channels, though the quality and accessibility of analog options vary significantly.

Healthcare has been transformed by telemedicine, but the best systems recognize that some patients need in-person care, that some lack reliable internet for video appointments, and that some medical situations require physical examination. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital health adoption while simultaneously revealing its limitations.

Utilities have largely maintained phone payment options and physical payment centers, though often with reduced hours or locations. Automatic payment systems and online billing are encouraged but typically not mandatory.

"Ensuring equitable access to digital technologies is not just a technological issue but a crucial component of social well-being and mental health support for the elderly."

— Dr. Yinzi Jin, Digital Exclusion Researcher

The pattern is clear: successful implementation doesn't mean freezing technology in time. It means maintaining genuine alternatives that work for people who can't or won't use digital options, not just offering token analog services that are deliberately inconvenient.

The Path Forward

Several trends will shape the future of analog rights:

Legislative expansion: More countries and regions are likely to follow France's lead. As digital exclusion becomes a more visible political issue, particularly with aging populations in developed countries, expect legislation explicitly requiring analog alternatives for essential services.

Litigation clarification: American courts will continue wrestling with what constitutes adequate accessibility. Expect clearer standards about when digital-only services violate disability rights laws and what remedies are required.

Technological bridges: Innovations may reduce the tension between digital efficiency and analog accessibility. AI-powered phone systems that actually work, streamlined paper-to-digital conversion processes, and hybrid service models could make dual systems less burdensome.

Generational shifts: The "digital natives will solve everything" argument has merit but shouldn't be overstated. People who grow up with technology don't necessarily remain digitally capable as they age, and new forms of digital exclusion may emerge as technology continues evolving faster than any generation can easily follow.

Economic pressures: The next recession or budget crisis will test commitment to dual systems. When money is tight, maintaining expensive parallel infrastructure faces risk—making legal protections particularly important.

Climate considerations: The environmental case for digital services may strengthen, creating tension with accessibility arguments. Expect debates about whether analog rights can be limited for sustainability reasons and what constitutes a reasonable balance.

What This Means for You

Whether you're digitally savvy or prefer analog interactions, these legal developments matter.

If you struggle with digital services: You have more rights than you might think. In many jurisdictions, you can demand phone assistance, paper forms, or in-person service for essential needs. Disability rights laws often protect you even if you don't consider yourself disabled. Organizations trying to force you into digital-only channels may be violating accessibility requirements.

If you're a business leader: Understand that accessibility isn't optional and digital-only strategies carry legal risk. Compliance means genuinely usable alternatives, not just technical availability of a phone number no one answers. The cost of maintaining analog channels may be less than the cost of accessibility lawsuits, regulatory fines, and reputational damage.

If you're a policy advocate: The momentum is building for stronger analog rights protections. Effective advocacy combines the moral case (equity, dignity, choice) with pragmatic arguments (health impacts, demographic inevitability, legal liability). Coalition-building between disability rights, elder advocacy, and digital rights groups creates political power.

If you're helping family or neighbors: Many people don't know they can demand alternatives or don't feel empowered to push back against forced digitization. Sometimes the most important intervention is simply saying, "You have a right to a different option, and here's how to request it."

Conclusion

The legal right to analog access represents something larger than banking preferences or technology choices. It's a question of what kind of society we want to build.

One vision sees digital transformation as inevitable progress that everyone must adapt to or be left behind. Services should optimize for the digital majority, and the costs of maintaining legacy systems aren't justified for shrinking populations of analog users.

The alternative vision recognizes that essential services carry special obligations. Not everything that's technologically possible is ethically acceptable. A society that locks people out of banking, healthcare, and civic participation because they can't navigate a smartphone app has failed a basic test of justice.

The emerging framework of analog rights laws—from France's business requirements to the EU's accessibility mandates to U.S. disability litigation—charts a middle path. It says that digital innovation is welcome and often beneficial, but it can't come at the cost of excluding vulnerable populations. We can have both technological progress and human dignity.

That principle extends beyond the elderly to everyone who—by choice, circumstance, or capability—needs alternatives to all-digital systems. The right to analog access is ultimately the right to participate in society on terms that respect human diversity rather than demanding conformity to technological defaults.

The quiet legal revolution continues. And for millions of people, it might mean the difference between inclusion and invisibility.

Latest from Each Category