(Declaratory Relief)  (On behalf of Plaintiffs, the Nationwide Class, and all Subclasses)  171.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations pled in paragraphs 1- 170 of this Complaint.  172.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiffs contend, and are informed and believe that Defendant denies that its stores fail to  comply with applicable laws including but not limited to, Title III of the Americans with  Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, §§ 92A and 98, Mass.  Gen. Law ch. 93, § 103, California Civil Code § 13082,  California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. –  the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-54.3 – the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Bus. &  Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. – the Unfair Competition Law, New York State Human Rights Law  §§ 290 et seq., New York Civil Rights Law §§ 40 et seq., New York City Human Rights Law -  NYC Admin. Code§ 8-107, and Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 121.001, et seq.   173.  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.   (Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. – the Unfair Competition Law)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Lisa Irving, NFB, and the California Subclasses)  128.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations pled in paragraphs 1- 127 of this Complaint.  129.  The Unfair Competition Law of the California Business & Practices Code (UCL)  provides, in pertinent part that “unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair  or fraudulent business act or practice.”  CA Bus. & Prof. § 17200.  130.  The unlawful prong of the UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them  as unlawful practices that are independently actionable under the UCL.  131.  Virtually any law or regulation – federal or state, statutory or common law – can  serve as a predicate for an UCL “unlawful” violation.  If a business practice violates any law, it  also violates Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. and may be redressed.  132.  Defendant has violated the unlawful prong of the UCL by violating each of the  following: 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; the  California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. – the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-  (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class)   27.  Defendant currently operates approximately seventy (70) stores in the United  States, including the District of Columbia, with at least seven (7) more stores scheduled to open  within the next eight months.  Defendant’s stores include three (3) in Massachusetts, eleven (11)  in California, four (4) in New York, and twelve (12) in Texas.     28.  The Container Store promotes itself as the original and leading specialty retailer  of storage and organization products in the United States and the only national retailer solely  devoted to the category.  Defendant promises creative, multifunctional, customizable storage and  organization solutions that help its customers save time, save space and improve the quality of  their lives.    30.  On information and belief, on an annual basis, Defendant processes hundreds of  millions of dollars in sales transactions annually, including millions of dollars in sales to its blind  or visually impaired customers.    31.  It is estimated that there are 10 million Americans who are visually impaired,  including approximately 1.3 million that are legally blind.  Although precise numbers are not  available at this time, it is safe to estimate that blind customers make tens of thousands of sales  transactions on an annual basis at Defendant’s many locations.   32.  This case arises out of Defendant’s failure to comply with the legal regulations  requiring it to provide equal access to its products and services to blind or visually impaired  customers.     34.  The Container Store has long known this style of POS Device cannot be  independently used by its blind or visually impaired customers.    35.  On information and belief, The Container Store has only recently taken steps to  replace its POS Devices in California– a state with friendly disability laws and severe  compensatory damages for noncompliance – and a state that has for many years explicitly  required all merchants to provide tactually discernible keypads to enable blind customers to  independently make purchases on their debit cards.  § 13082.  See California Financial Code §  13082.   37.  The device fails to provide the accessibility it purports to provide – an outcome  that could have been avoided had The Container Store simply included the NFB and its members  in the development or procurement process.   38.  A photo of a POS Device utilizing the Accessibility Overlay is provided below.   40.  A customer’s use of a debit card instead of a credit card affords the added  protection of requiring a PIN to complete the transaction.  This extra layer of protection is  important in the event a card is lost or stolen.  For a blind or visually impaired customer who is  required to disclose that PIN in order to proceed with a transaction, that security is compromised.   42.  In addition to being unable to independently utilize the POS Device – whether  with the Accessibility Overlay, or without – blind or visually impaired customers also cannot  independently use the kiosks provided at the register or at various store locations, for  participation in The Container Store’s Loyalty Program.     43.  Many of the NFB’s members, including Plaintiffs, have patronized Defendant’s  retail stores, intend to continue to do so in the future, and would like to continue to patronize  Defendant’s retail stores when the discriminatory barriers are removed or cured.   44.  Defendant’s touchscreen POS Devices and kiosks have the capacity to provide  more information than that which is necessary for completing a transaction.  Due to the fact that  the information being presented through these touchscreens is entirely inaccessible in a nonvisual  manner, blind customers stand the significant risk of not having full and equal access to goods  and services being offered by Defendant.     46.  Multiple states, including Massachusetts and California, have recognized the  obvious privacy issues that arise when a customer’s personal identifying information is provided,  and have limited a customer’s need to produce such information during a credit card transaction.   Due to the absence of any otherwise capable and accessible alternative while shopping at The  Container Store, blind or visually impaired customers must provide their email or other  personally identifying information orally, without the same privacy protections afforded sighted  customers.    47.  Should a blind or visually impaired customer decide to partake in the additional  goods and services being offered by the POP! Program, they must forego their right to privacy  and disclose personal identifying information in a public manner that is not required of sighted  customers.   48.  The individual plaintiffs in this case are legally blind.  As do sighted customers,  they also turn to The Container Store for specialty storage and organization products.     49.  The elimination of discrimination such as that of The Container Store is at the  core of the NFB’s organizational purpose.  To the extent this lawsuit seeks injunctive and/or  declaratory relief, the individual participation of each injured NFB member is not indispensable  to the proper resolution of this case.   63.  The NFB is a membership organization.  Its members include many people like  Mark Cadigan, Mika Pyyhkala, Lisa Irving, Arthur Jacobs, Jeanine Kay Lineback, and Heather  Albright, who are blind or visually impaired.  Many of these people are regular patrons of retail  establishments such as The Container Store.  a.  Mark Cadigan   65.  Mark Cadigan was unable to make a debit card purchase independently because,  at the time of the visit, The Container Store’s POS Devices had only touchscreen devices that  could not be read or viewed by Mr. Cadigan.  He was therefore unable to independently enter his  PIN to complete a transaction.  Mr. Cadigan has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities,  goods and services of The Container Store, as a result of accessibility barriers at Defendant’s  stores.   b.  Mika Pyyhkala   66.  In or about May of 2015, Mika Pyyhkala visited one of Defendant’s stores located  in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.     67.  Mika Pyyhkala was unable to make a debit card purchase independently because,  at the time of the visit, The Container Store’s POS Devices had only touchscreen devices that  could not be read or viewed by Mr. Pyyhkala.  He was therefore unable to independently enter  his PIN to complete a transaction.  Mr. Pyykhala registered for The Container Store’s Loyalty  Program in or about the winter of 2014.  Because the devices that The Container Store employs  to enable customers to privately enter their personal identifying information could not be used by  Mr. Pyykhala, he was forced to verbally disclose his personal information to the store clerk in  order to participate in and benefit from the Loyalty Program during his May 2015 visit. Mr.  Pyyhkala has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of The  Container Store, as a result of accessibility barriers at Defendant’s stores.  c.  Lisa Irving   69.  Lisa Irving was unable to independently participate in the POP! Program offered  by The Container Store because the devices that The Container Store employs to enable  customers to privately enter their personal identifying information could not be used by Ms.  Irving.  Ms. Irving was forced to verbally disclose her personal information to the store clerk in  order to enroll in the program. Ms. Irving has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities,  goods and services of The Container Store, as a result of accessibility barriers at Defendant’s  stores.  d.  Arthur Jacobs   70.  In or about May of 2015, Arthur Jacobs visited one of Defendant’s stores located  in New York, New York.    72.  In or about February of 2015, Jeanine Kay Lineback visited one of Defendant’s  stores located in Austin, Texas.    73.  Jeanine Kay Lineback was unable to make a debit card purchase independently.   At the time of her visit, The Container Store’s POS Devices utilized the Accessibility Overlay  which contained tactile portions that could not be independently discerned by Ms. Lineback.  She  required verbal instruction and guidance to complete her transaction.  There was no privacy  shield to prevent the store clerk or other customers from viewing her PIN as it was entered.   On  a separate occasion in or about May of 2015, Ms. Lineback was also unable to independently  register at the store for the POP program because the device that The Container Store employs to  enable customers to privately enter their personal identifying information could not be used by  Ms. Lineback.  Ms. Lineback has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and  services of The Container Store, as a result of accessibility barriers at Defendant’s stores.  f.  Heather Albright   74.  In or about February of 2015, Heather Albright visited one of Defendant’s stores  located in Austin, Texas.    76.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiffs, and other individuals similarly situated, will  continue to be unable to independently use Defendant’s POS Devices and/or equally participate  in The Container Store’s POP! Program in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA and state  law.   77.  Whether on the original POS Device, or The Container Store’s attempted  retrofitted solution (“Accessibility Overlay”), in order to purchase merchandise with a debit card  or participate in a promotional program, a blind or visually impaired customer is required to  disclose his/her private PIN or other personal identifying information directly to the cashier or  another person, or under their guidance and watch.  This is an unnecessary and intrusive  violation of privacy that could easily be remedied. To the extent that Defendant offers other  goods and services through its inaccessible touch screens, it further discriminates against its  blind or visually impaired customers.  79.  Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following two Massachusetts subclasses  (referred to herein as the “Massachusetts Subclass” or “Massachusetts Subclasses”) pursuant to  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3):  “all individuals who were unable to  independently register for and participate in the POP! Program at any The Container Store  location in Massachusetts because of a visual disability, at any time during the applicable  limitation period through the duration of any injunctive relief ordered by the Court,” and “all  individuals who were unable to independently complete a debit or credit card transaction  requiring entry of a PIN independently in a nonvisual manner using a touchscreen POS Device at  any The Container Store location in Massachusetts because of a visual disability, at any time  during the applicable limitation period through the duration of any injunctive relief ordered by  the Court.”   80.  Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following two California subclasses  (referred to herein as the “California Subclass” or “California Subclasses”) pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3):  “all individuals who were unable to  independently register for and participate in the POP! Program at any The Container Store  location in California because of a visual disability, at any time during the applicable limitation  period through the duration of any injunctive relief ordered by the Court,” and “all individuals  who were unable to independently complete a debit or credit card transaction requiring entry of a  PIN independently in a nonvisual manner using a touchscreen POS Device at any The Container  Store location in California because of a visual disability, at any time during the applicable  limitation period through the duration of any injunctive relief ordered by the Court.”   82.  Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following two Texas subclasses (referred to  herein as the “Texas Subclass” or “Texas Subclasses”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),  23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all individuals who were unable to independently register  for and participate in the POP! Program at any The Container Store location in Texas because of  a visual disability, at any time during the applicable limitation period through the duration of any  injunctive relief ordered by the Court,” and “all individuals who were unable to independently  complete a debit or credit card transaction requiring entry of a PIN independently in a nonvisual  manner using a touchscreen POS Device at any Texas The Container Store location because of a  visual disability, at any time during the applicable limitation period through the duration of any  injunctive relief ordered by the Court.”   84.  There are common questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be  represented in that they all have been and/or are being denied their civil rights to full and equal  access to, and use and enjoyment of, Defendant’s goods, facilities and/or services due to the lack  of equal access to Defendant’s goods and services as required by law for persons with  disabilities.  Common questions of law and fact include: (1) Whether The Container Store’s  retail establishments deny the full and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages or accommodations to the blind in violation of the ADA and California,  Massachusetts, New York and Texas laws; (2) If so, what measures are legally required to bring  The Container Store into compliance with the ADA and state law; and (3) Whether Plaintiffs and  members of the Nationwide Class and each Subclass sustained damages and, if so, the proper  measure of damages or other relief.   85.  The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Nationwide Class  and respective Subclasses.   86.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Nationwide Class and each Subclass.  Plaintiffs have retained and are  represented by counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation.   87.  Class certification of the claims of the Nationwide Class and each Subclass is  appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because The Container Store has acted or  refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Nationwide Class, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class and each  Subclass as a whole.   89.  Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action  in that it is likely to avoid the burden which would otherwise be placed upon the judicial system  by the filing of numerous individual lawsuits and there are no obstacles to effective and efficient  management of this lawsuit as a class action.  90.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations pled in paragraphs 1- 89 of this Complaint.    91.  Section 302(a) of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 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.   92.  Title III of the ADA applies to “any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or  operates a place of public accommodation.”  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).  Defendant owns, leases (or  leases to) and/or operates places of public accommodation.   94.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to  deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities the opportunity to  participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or  accommodations of a place of public accommodation.   95.  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,  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.   96.  Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class in that it  has failed to make its POS Devices and Loyalty Program fully accessible to individuals who are  blind or visually impaired in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, 12102(2) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.101  et seq.  Providing the auxiliary aids and services mandated by the ADA would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s businesses nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   97.  Defendant is financially capable of the costs required to provide auxiliary aids for  its POS Devices.  Notwithstanding this fact, The Container Store has failed to develop and  provide appropriate auxiliary aids for its blind customers.   99.  Without the requested injunctive relief, specifically including the request that the  Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for a period to be determined after Defendant certifies it is  fully compliant with the mandatory requirements of the ADA that are discussed above, The  Container Store’s non-compliance with the ADA’s requirements is likely to recur.  Violation of the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Mika Pyyhkala, Mark Cadigan, NFB, and the Massachusetts Subclass)  106.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations pled in paragraphs 1- 105 of this Complaint.  107.  Plaintiffs Mika Pyyhkala and Mark Cadigan are legally blind and recognized as a  protected class under Mass. Const. amend. CXIV and under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act,  Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93, § 103(a).  108.  The retail stores offered by Defendant in Massachusetts constitute a program or  activity under Mass. Const. amend. CXIV.  109.  Defendant has excluded blind or visually impaired people from the participation  in and benefits of the services offered at Defendant’s stores in Massachusetts and has subjected  Plaintiffs to discrimination under Mass. Const. amend. CXIV and the Massachusetts Equal  Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93, § 103. 