19. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to certify  a New York City subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally  blind persons in the City of New York who have attempted to access the  Defendant’s website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment  of services offered in the Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant  statutory period.   20. Common questions of law and fact exist among the class, including: whether the  Defendant’s website is a “public accommodation” under the ADA; whether the  Defendant’s website is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL; whether the Defendant’s website denies the full and equal  enjoyment of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  individuals  with visual disabilities, violating the ADA; and whether the  Defendant’s website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals  with visual disabilities,  violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   21. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  -6-  without limitation, the following:  a.  Whether www.airbnb.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  b.  Whether www.airbnb.com is a “place or provider of public accommodation”  under the laws of the New York;  c.  Whether Defendant through its website www.airbnb.com denies the full and  equal enjoyment of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or  accommodations to people with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA;  and  d.  Whether Defendant through its website www.airbnb.com denies the full and  equal enjoyment of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or  accommodations to people with visual disabilities in violation of the laws of  New York.   22. The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class. The class, similarly to the Plaintiff,  are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, claim that the Defendants  violated the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on the Defendant’s website so it can be independently accessible to the  class.   23. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  class because the Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel. Class  certification of the claims is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because the  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,  making appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the  Plaintiff and the class as a whole.  -7-   24. Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because fact and legal questions common to the class predominate over questions  affecting only individual class members, and because a class action is superior to  other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   25. Judicial economy will be served by maintaining this lawsuit as a class action in  that it is likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial  system by the filing of numerous similar suits by individuals with visual disabilities  throughout the United States.   26. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  34. The Defendant’s website is offered to the public. The website offers features that  should allow all individuals to access the services that the Defendant offers through  their website and corporate office location(s). Defendant’s premises provide to the  public important Products and services. Defendant’s website provides consumers  with access to information about the services which Defendant offers in  connection with their physical corporate office locations. Through the Website,  -11-  its customers are, inter alia, able to: find information about the various apartments,  condos and houses it offers for rent in New York and throughout the country,  privacy policies, promotional information and other services.   35. It is, upon information and belief, the Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  the Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to the  Defendant’s website, and to therefore specifically deny the services that are  offered and are heavily integrated with the Defendant’s locations. Due to the  Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, the  Plaintiff and other visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied  equal access to Defendant’s website information and services, information about  hours of operation, and related services.   36. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use  a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. The Plaintiff is,  however, a proficient  NVDA screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet.  The Plaintiff has visited the website on separate occasions using the NVDA  screen-reader.   37. During the Plaintiff’s visits to the website, the last occurring in November  2018, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff  full and equal access to the services offered to the public and made available  to the public; and that denied the Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the services of  the website, as well as to the services of the Defendant’s locations in New York  by being unable to learn more information about office locations.    38. While attempting to navigate the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple  -12-  accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired individuals that include, but  are not limited to: (1) Lack of alternative text (“alt-text”), or a text equivalent. Alt- text is an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web  accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen- reading software can speak the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which  includes captcha prompts. Alt-text does not change the visual presentation, but  instead a text box shows when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of alt- text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a  description of the graphics. As a result, the Defendant’s visually-impaired  customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse, look for office  locations, information about office amenities, including hours of operation, and  services. (2) Empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of  the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard  and screen-reader users. (3) Redundant links where adjacent links go to the same  URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard  and screen-reader users. (4) Linked images missing alt-text, which causes  problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not  provide alt-text. A screen reader then has no content to present the user as to the  function of the link, including information contained in PDFs.   39. Due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant’s website, blind and visually- impaired customers such as the Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully  and equally use or enjoy the facilities and services the Defendant offers to the  public on its website. The access barriers the Plaintiff encountered have caused  -13-  a denial of the Plaintiff’s full and equal access in the past, and now deter the  Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the website.   40. These access barriers on the Defendant’s website have deterred the Plaintiff from  visiting the Defendant’s physical office location(s) and enjoying them equal to  sighted individuals because: the Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours  of operation of the Defendant’s locations on its website, preventing the Plaintiff  from visiting the locations to enjoy its services. The Plaintiff intends to visit  the Defendant’s website and physical locations in the near future if the Plaintiff  could access the Defendant’s website.   41. If the website was equally accessible to all, the Plaintiff could independently  navigate the website and complete a desired transaction, as sighted individuals do.   42. The Plaintiff, through the Plaintiff’s attempts to use the website, has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and  independently unusable by blind and visually-impaired persons.   43. Because basic compliance with WCAG 2.0 would provide the Plaintiff and other  visually-impaired persons with equal access to the website, the Plaintiff alleges  that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including, but  not limited to, the following policies or practices: constructing and maintaining  a website that is inaccessible to visually-impaired persons, including the Plaintiff;  failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently intuitive so as to be  equally accessible to visually-impaired persons, including the Plaintiff; and failing  to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial harm and  discrimination to blind and visually-impaired persons , such as the Plaintiff, as a  -14-  member of a protected class.   44. The Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination against  others, as alleged herein.   45. The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that the Plaintiff seeks in  this action. In relevant part, the ADA requires:  In the case of violations of … this title, injunctive relief shall include an  order to alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable  by individuals with disabilities …. Where appropriate, injunctive relief shall  also include requiring  the … modification of a policy ….42 U.S.C. §  12188(a)(2).   46. Because the Defendant’s website has never been equally accessible, and because  the Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause the  Defendant’s website to become and remain accessible, the Plaintiff invokes 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent injunction requiring the Defendant  to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to the Plaintiff to assist the Defendant  to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for the Defendant’s website. The website  must be accessible for individuals with disabilities who use desktop  computers, laptops, tablets, and smartphones. The Plaintiff seeks that this  permanent injunction require the Defendant to cooperate with the agreed-upon  consultant to: train the Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the  website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; regularly  check the accessibility of the website under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; regularly  -15-  test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons to ensure that the  Defendant’s website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and develop an  accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on the Defendant’s website, with  contact information for users to report accessibility-related problems and require  that any third-party vendors who participate on the Defendant’s website to be  fully accessible to the disabled by conforming with WCAG 2.0.   47. If the Defendant’s website were accessible, the Plaintiff and similarly situated  blind and visually-impaired persons could independently access information about  office locations, information about office amenities, including hours of operation,  and related services.   48. Although the Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating the Defendant’s website, the Defendant lacks a plan  and policy reasonably calculated to make the Defendant’s website fully and  equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and other visually- impaired persons.   49. The Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining the Defendant’s website and the Defendant has  generated significant revenue from the Defendant’s website. These amounts are  far greater than the associated cost of making the Defendant’s website equally  accessible to visually impaired customers.   50. Without injunctive relief, the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired persons will  continue to be unable to independently use the Defendant’s website, violating  their rights.  -16-  51.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   52. Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides:  No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and  equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or  accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns,  leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(a).   53. Defendant’s offices are public accommodations within the definition of Title III  of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege,  or advantage of Defendant’s office(s). The Website is a service that is integrated  with these location(s).   54. Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to  deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from  the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an  entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   55. Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to  deny individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from  the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation, which  is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   56. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination also  includes, among other things:  [A] failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,  when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,  -17-  privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless  the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally  alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or  accommodations; and a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that  no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise  treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids  and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would  fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage,  or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).   57. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the  regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected  class of persons under the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits  the major life activity of sight within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)- (2)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the  Website, has not been provided services that are provided to other patrons who  are not disabled, and has been provided services that are inferior to the services  provided to non-disabled persons. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and  equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are  ongoing.   58. Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  59. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   60. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) provides that it is “an unlawful discriminatory  practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,  -18-  superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation . . .  because of the . . . disability of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse,  withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages,  facilities or privileges thereof.”   61. Defendant’s physical location(s) are located in State of New York and throughout  the United States and constitute sales establishments and public accommodations  within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a  service, privilege or advantage of Defendant. Defendant’s Website is a service  that is by and integrated with these physical locations.   62. Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   63. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with  Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, services  that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   64. Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(i), unlawful discriminatory practice includes,  among other things, “a refusal to make reasonable modifications in policies,  practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford  facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with  disabilities, unless such person can demonstrate that making such modifications  would fundamentally alter the nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or  -19-  accommodations being offered or would result in an undue burden".   65. Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(ii), unlawful discriminatory practice also  includes, “a refusal to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no  individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence  of auxiliary aids and services, unless such person can demonstrate that taking such  steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or  accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.”   66. Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been  followed by other large business entities and government agencies in making their  website accessible, including but not limited to: adding alt-text to graphics and  ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the  basic components to make its Website accessible would neither fundamentally  alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   67. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the class  on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)  in that Defendant has:  a.  constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind   class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive   and/or obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  c.  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of   -20-  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   68. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   69. Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the  full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant’s Website and its  physical locations under § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful  practices, Plaintiff and the Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   70. Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human Rights  Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   71. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and  fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   72. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   73. Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  74. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.  -21-   75. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   76. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of  this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges of any places of public accommodations, resort or  amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and  applicable alike to all persons. No persons, being the owner, lessee, proprietor,  manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any such place shall directly or  indirectly refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges thereof . . .”   77. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) provides that “no person because of . . .   disability, as such term is defined in section two hundred ninety-two of executive  law, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any  harassment, as defined in section 240.25 of the penal law, in the exercise thereof,  by any other person or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or  any agency or subdivision.”   78. Defendant’s New York State physical location(s) are sales establishments and  public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its  Website is a service that is by and integrated with these establishments.   79. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and operates  its physical location(s) and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).  -22-   80. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with Defendant’s physical location(s) to be completely inaccessible to  the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the  facilities and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   81. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states that “any corporation which shall violate any  of the provisions of sections forty, forty-a, forty-b or forty-two . . . shall for each  and every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred  dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person  aggrieved thereby . . .”   82. Under NY Civil Rights Law § 40-d, “any person who shall violate any of the  provisions of the foregoing section, or subdivision three of section 240.30 or  section 240.31 of the penal law, or who shall aid or incite the violation of any of  said provisions shall for each and every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of  not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, to be  recovered by the person aggrieved thereby in any court of competent jurisdiction  in the county in which the defendant shall reside ...”   83. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   84. Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability are  being directly or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq.  -23-  and/or its implementing regulations.   85. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per instance,  as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each and  every offense.  86. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   87. N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) provides that “It shall be an unlawful  discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor,  manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public  accommodation, because of . . . disability . . . directly or indirectly, to refuse,  withhold from or deny to such person, any of the accommodations, advantages,  facilities or privileges thereof.”   88. Defendant’s location(s) are sales establishments and public accommodations  within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a  service that is integrated with its establishment(s).   89. Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical  locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   90. Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with its physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  -24-  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities,  products, and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   91. Defendant is required to “make reasonable accommodation to the needs of  persons with disabilities . . . any person prohibited by the provisions of [§ 8-107  et seq.] from discriminating on the basis of disability shall make reasonable  accommodation to enable a person with a disability to . . . enjoy the right or rights  in question provided that the disability is known or should have been known by  the covered entity.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a).   92. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the Sub- Class on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code  § 8-107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a) in that Defendant has:  a.  constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind   class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive   and/or obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  c.  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of   substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   93. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   94. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and  -25-  its establishments under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless  the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful  practices, Plaintiff and members of the class will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   95. Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   96. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and  fines under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) for each  offense as well as punitive damages pursuant to § 8-502.   97. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   98. Under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120 and § 8-126 and the remedies,  procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for  judgment as set forth below.  99. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and City Sub- Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  100. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that its  Website contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access  to the services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical locations,  which Defendant owns, operations and controls, fails to comply with applicable  laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,  -26-  42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  101. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that  each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act  accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1281 et seq.  