diff --git a/docs/docs/aztec/concepts/accounts/index.md b/docs/docs/aztec/concepts/accounts/index.md
index 9b953087928..3d502a96390 100644
--- a/docs/docs/aztec/concepts/accounts/index.md
+++ b/docs/docs/aztec/concepts/accounts/index.md
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Implementing AA at the application layer has the main drawback that it's more co
 
 Now, there have also been multiple proposals for getting AA implemented at the _protocol_ level in Ethereum. This usually implies introducing a new transaction type or set of opcodes where signature verification and fee payment is handled by the EVM. See EIPs [2803](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2803), [2938](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2938), or [3074](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3074). None of these have gained traction due to the efforts involved in implementing while keeping backwards compatibility.
 
-However, other chains are experimenting with protocol-level AA. Both [Starknet](https://docs.starknet.io/documentation/architecture_and_concepts/Accounts/introduction/#account_abstraction) and [zkSync](https://era.zksync.io/docs/dev/developer-guides/aa.html) have native AA, zkSync being the first EVM-compatible one to do so. To maintain Ethereum compatibility, zkSync implements a [default account contract](https://github.com/matter-labs/era-system-contracts/blob/main/contracts/DefaultAccount.sol) in Solidity that mimics Ethereum's protocol behavior.
+However, other chains are experimenting with protocol-level AA. Both [Starknet](https://docs.starknet.io/documentation/architecture_and_concepts/Accounts/introduction/#account_abstraction) and [zkSync](https://docs.zksync.io/build/developer-reference/account-abstraction) have native AA, zkSync being the first EVM-compatible one to do so. To maintain Ethereum compatibility, zkSync implements a [default account contract](https://github.com/matter-labs/era-system-contracts/blob/main/contracts/DefaultAccount.sol) in Solidity that mimics Ethereum's protocol behavior.
 
 ### Preventing DoS attacks