When accessibility is skipped, the conversation usually stops at "we'll fix it later." The cost rarely stays technical.
What the cost looks like
Users who leave and don't come back
When someone hits a barrier, such as a form they can't navigate, a button they can't activate or an error message they can't read, they don't file a bug report. They leave, and in most cases they don't return.
Reach that never grows
According to the World Health Organization, over 1 billion people live with some form of disability. That's a large share of any potential audience, and an inaccessible product caps its own growth by excluding them.
Legal exposure that was avoidable
Regulations like the EAA (European Accessibility Act), the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and Brazil's LBI (Lei Brasileira de Inclusão, Lei nº 13.146/2015) are increasingly enforced. Many jurisdictions now require accessibility compliance, and organizations that treat it as optional are finding out the hard way.
The framing problem
"Technical debt" implies something to schedule and eventually pay off. It suggests the product works, just imperfectly.
For the users it affects, an inaccessible product doesn't work at all. Calling it debt changes how teams prioritize it and how they understand the risk.
My perspective
These observations come from patterns I see in the industry, and every context is different. Still, the teams I've seen treat accessibility as a business concern, rather than a compliance checkbox or a developer's job, tend to build better products for everyone.
The market you're missing is larger than most teams realize.