Your logo is exempt from the text contrast rule, and that exemption stops sooner than founders expect. The numbers, and where they actually bite.
Two numbers decide it, read from the W3C criteria on 13 September 2026: body text needs a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 and large-scale text at least 3:1. Your logo is exempt from both. That exemption is narrower than it sounds, and the gap between what it covers and what it does not is where brands get caught.
The exemption, in the standard’s own words
Under the Contrast (Minimum) criterion, the standard says it plainly: “Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no contrast requirement.”
So a pale wordmark on a pale ground is not a failure, and nobody can require you to darken your logo for that reason alone.
Where the exemption stops
Here is the part that does not reach founders. The Non-text Contrast criterion, which covers interface components and graphical objects, carries no logotype exception at all. Its exceptions are inactive components, appearance determined by the browser, and cases where a specific presentation is essential.
The practical translation: your wordmark sitting in a header as a brand name is exempt; the same mark used as a button, an icon or a state indicator is a component, and it is judged against the non-text threshold of 3:1.
No rounding, and what that means at 2.999:1
The non-text threshold is 3:1 and it does not round. A measured ratio of 2.999:1 fails, and the fact that it fails by an invisible margin is not an argument anybody accepts.
The rounding rule is why a palette should be checked before it is approved, not after the website is built. Moving a brand colour by a few percent at palette stage costs nothing; moving it after every surface has shipped is a re-release.
Every threshold, in one place
| What you are checking | Threshold | Does the logo exemption apply |
|---|---|---|
| Body text | 4.5:1 | Only if the text is part of the logo or brand name |
| Large-scale text | 3:1 | Same |
| Icons, buttons, interface components | 3:1 | No exemption in the criterion |
| Text spacing tolerances | 4 separate numeric thresholds | Not a contrast question |
The last row is the one most palettes forget. The text spacing criterion imposes four separate numeric thresholds, so a type system that only survives at its designed spacing has a second problem waiting.
December 2024, and the version your guidelines quote
WCAG 2.2 was published on 12 December 2024, bringing 9 new criteria and removing one. If your brand guidelines were written before that date and quote a version number, they are quoting an older document.
A version change does not make an old palette illegal. It means the document your suppliers are working from is not the current one, and the difference will surface the first time somebody audits a site you did not commission.
One thing to ignore
You will see APCA quoted as the modern replacement. It is not a standard, and it was removed from the WCAG 3 draft.
If a supplier proposes to check your palette against APCA instead of the published criteria, that is a conversation worth having before the work rather than a box to tick. MarkaWorks checks palettes against the published thresholds and records the measured ratios in the guidelines, so the next supplier inherits numbers rather than opinions.
Where this bites on a pack
Packaging is not covered by the web criteria, and founders sometimes read that as permission.
Permission is the wrong reading, for a practical reason rather than a legal one: the same palette usually runs on both, and a colour pair that fails on screen is often the pair that also disappears under shop lighting. Treating the thresholds as a design floor across both surfaces costs nothing at palette stage and removes an argument later. MarkaWorks applies them to the brand palette and not only to the website, so the same values travel to the pack.
If your palette is already chosen
Most founders reading this are not picking colours. The palette exists, it is on the pack, and the question is what these two numbers change.
Three things, and none of them is a redesign. Your wordmark is safe where it sits as a brand name, so nobody can require you to darken it on that argument alone. The same mark becomes a component the moment it is used as a button or an icon, and there it is judged at 3:1, which is usually a website decision rather than a brand one. And your supporting colours, the ones that carry small text on a pack or a page, are the pair most likely to sit just under the line.
So the work is a measurement, not a project. Measure what you already have, write the ratios into the guidelines, and you have converted an open question into a documented position. If one pair fails, you are choosing between adjusting that pair and restricting where it is used, and both of those are cheaper than discovering it during an audit somebody else commissioned.
Three pairs to measure this week
Take your three most-used colour pairs and measure them, in this order.
- Body text on its background, against 4.5:1.
- Icons and buttons on their background, against 3:1, with no logo exemption.
- Your brand colour on white, because that is the pair every supplier will reuse.
- Write the measured ratio next to each pair, with the date it was measured.
Put that page in front of your next supplier. A palette with measured ratios beside it is a palette that can be defended; one without them is a preference, and preferences lose arguments with auditors.
Palette checks at MarkaWorks
MarkaWorks checks palettes against the published thresholds and records the measured ratios in the guidelines, so your next supplier inherits numbers rather than opinions. We apply the same thresholds to the pack and not only to the website, because the same values travel to both. That check is part of the brand strategy and visual identity work.
