(Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.))   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   26. Defendant, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., controls and operates  Neutrogena.com. in New York State and throughout the United States and the world.    27. Neutrogena.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for  online sale.  The online store allows the user to browse skin care, hair care, and cosmetic products,  make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.   28. Among the features offered by Neutrogena.com are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Johnson & Johnson and  Neutrogena on social media, using such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to purchase the various lines of skin care,  hair care, cosmetics, and other related products; and  (c) learning about the company and its story, about the benefit of the products, about  how to use the products, and about shipping and return policies, amongst other features.   30. Johnson & Johnson denies the blind access to goods, services and information  made available through Neutrogena.com by preventing them from freely navigating  Neutrogena.com.   31. Neutrogena.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by  Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software.  These barriers are  pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down  menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of  keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the  same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   32. Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical  image on a website.  Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a  screen-reader can speak the alternative text while sighted users see the picture.  Alt-text does not  change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over  the picture.  There are many important pictures on Neutrogena.com that lack a text equivalent.   The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a  description of the graphics (screen-readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of  the image to a blind computer user).  As a result, Plaintiff and blind Neutrogena.com customers  are unable to determine what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make  purchases.   34. Additional accessibility issues with the Neutrogena.com website include:  (a) Navigation is very difficult.  The product page is read verbatim from the html  which is long and cumbersome.  In this case, the visitor to the product page hears  “haircare/conditioner-and-treatment/triple-moisture-silk-touch-leave-in- cream/6802175.html.”  (b) The price and size fields are not labeled and announce immediately after the  long statement above, making it difficult to understand what was just read.  Most  screen-reader users, including the Plaintiff, will completely miss the price.  (c) While the “add to bag” button is announced and can be selected, this is where  the process completely breaks down.  A sighted person will see a confirmation pop- up window.  However, blind people using a screen-reader are not aware of this pop- up window and have no idea of knowing if the selected item was added to the  shopping cart. Furthermore, the cart icon on top of the page read by screen-readers  and there is no way for a blind user to get to the shopping cart.   36. Plaintiff is unable to locate the shopping bag because the shopping bag form  does not specify the purpose of the shopping bag.  As a result, blind customers are denied access  to the shopping bag.  Consequently, blind customers are unaware if they are adding products into  their shopping bags and are essentially prevented from purchasing items on Neutrogena.com.   37. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Neutrogena.com even more time consuming and confusing for  Plaintiff and blind consumers.   38. Neutrogena.com requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.  Yet, it  is a fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be accessible to Plaintiff and  blind people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page using only the keyboard.   Indeed, Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual  activity of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on the page to another.  Thus,  Neutrogena.com’s inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a  transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or  make purchases on Neutrogena.com.   40. Neutrogena.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal  access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Neutrogena.com and who would otherwise be able  to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Neutrogena.com in New York State and  throughout the United States.   41. Plaintiff, Linda Slade, has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on  Neutrogena.com, most recently on August 6, 2019 but was unable to do so independently  because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website.  These access barriers have caused  Neutrogena.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually- impaired persons.  Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to purchase  hair care products including the “Triple Moisture Silk Touch Leave-In Cream.”   42. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Neutrogena.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be  inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   43. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Neutrogena.com.   45. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   46. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,  the goods, benefits and services of Neutrogena.com, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an  injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of defendant’s  conduct.  47. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted  to access Neutrogena.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and  services offered by Neutrogena.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   48. Plaintiff seeks certification of the following New York subclass pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally blind individuals in New  York State who have attempted to access Neutrogena.com and as a result have been denied  access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Neutrogena.com, during the relevant  statutory period.”   50. This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an   inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of Neutrogena.com.   Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, blind persons have  been and are being denied full and equal access to independently browse, select and shop on  Neutrogena.com.   51. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  (a) Whether Neutrogena.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  (b) Whether Neutrogena.com is a “place or provider of public accommodation”  under the laws of New York;  (c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Neutrogena.com, denies the full and  equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  (d) Whether Defendant, through its website, Neutrogena.com, denies the full and  equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities in violation of the law of New York.   52. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.  The class,  similar to the Plaintiff, is severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claims Johnson &  Johnson has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove  access barriers on their website, Neutrogena.com, so it can be independently accessible to the  class of people who are legally blind.   54. Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members clearly 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.   55. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of 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 people with visual disabilities throughout the  United States.    56. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  57. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   59. Neutrogena.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).     60. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Neutrogena.com.   61. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I), 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 an entity.   62. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities an  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals.   63. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II),  unlawful discrimination 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.”   65. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their websites accessible, including but not limited  to ensuring adequate prompting and accessible alt-text.  Incorporating the basic components to  make their website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s  business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   66. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Patrons of Johnson & Johnson who  are blind have been denied full and equal access to Neutrogena.com, have not been provided  services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided  services that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled patrons.   67. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   69. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass will continue to  suffer irreparable harm.   70. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA, and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   71. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  73. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   74. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) provides that it is “an unlawful discriminatory  practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, 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.”.   75. Neutrogena.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     76. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Neutrogena.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. §  292(1).   78. Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 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 accommodations.”   79. In addition, 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.”   80. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   82. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   83. 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Neutrogena.com under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) et seq.  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.   84. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the New York State  Human Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   85. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   86. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   87. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  88. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 87 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   89. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   90. 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 . . .”   91. 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.”   92. Neutrogena.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     94. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Neutrogena.com, causing Neutrogena.com to be completely  inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   95. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   96. In addition, 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 . . .”   97. Specifically, under N.Y. 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 . . .”   99. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class on the basis of disability are  being directly indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  100. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense. 