29.  Defendant  offers  the  commercial  website,  https://www.olympiasports.net/, to the public. The website offers features which should  allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by the Defendant and which  Defendant ensures delivery of such goods throughout the United States including New  York State. The goods and services offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to,  the following, which allow consumers to: purchase clothing, footwear, sports equipment,  watches, headphones, accessories and other products available online for purchase, and to  ascertain information relating to pricing, ordering merchandise and return and privacy  policies.   31.  Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a  computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a  proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited  the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   32.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in August, 2020,  in an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple  access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted  person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made  available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and  services of the Website by being unable to purchase clothing, footwear, sports equipment,  watches, headphones, accessories and other products available online for purchase, and to  ascertain information relating to pricing, ordering merchandise and return and privacy  policies.   34.  Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements. This  is a problem for the visually-impaired because the screen reader fails to distinguish   one page from another. In order to fix this problem, Defendant must change the title  elements for each page.    36.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s Website, blind and visually- impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally  use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The  access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal  access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website.    37.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s Website and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals because: Plaintiff  was unable to use and enjoy the Website in the same manner as sighted individuals do,  preventing Plaintiff from using the Website to purchase items and to view the items.   38.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   39.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of  the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable by  blind and visually-impaired persons.   41.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   42.  The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that 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).   44.  Web-based technologies have features and content that are modified on a  daily, and in some instances an hourly, basis, and a one time “fix” to an inaccessible  website will not cause the website to remain accessible without a corresponding change in  corporate policies related to those web-based technologies. To evaluate whether an  inaccessible website has been rendered accessible, and whether corporate policies related  to web-based technologies have been changed in a meaningful manner that will cause the  website to remain accessible, the website must be reviewed on a periodic basis using both  automated accessibility screening tools and end user testing by visually-impaired persons.   45.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired persons could independently shop for and otherwise research the  Defendant’s products via the Website.   47.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining their Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making their Website  equally accessible to visually-impaired consumers.    48.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  49.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind  individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as  a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered by  Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.   50.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York State Sub-Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally  blind individuals in the State of New York who have attempted to access Defendant’s  Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and  services offered by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.    52.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class and Sub- Classes, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to visually- impaired persons, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to visually- impaired persons, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   53.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class and Sub-Classes. The Class, and  Sub-Classes, similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind  persons, and claim that Defendant has violated the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing  to update or remove access barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to  the Class and/or the Sub-Classes.   55.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions are common to Class Members 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 their litigation.   56.  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 visually-impaired persons throughout the  United States.  57.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   58.  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).   59.  Defendant’s online retail store is a place of public accommodation 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 online retail store   61.  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 goods, 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).   62.  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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).   64.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  65.  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.   66.  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.”   67.  Defendant’s Website operates in the State of New York and constitutes an  online sales establishment and a place of public accommodation within the definition of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendant’s online retail establishment.    68.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns  and/or operates its Website in the State of New York. Defendant is a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   70.  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 accommodations being offered or would  result in an undue burden".   71.  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.”   73.  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 not sufficiently  intuitive and/or obvious that it 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.   74.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   75.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant’s Website 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.   76.  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.   78.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   79.  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.  80.  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.   81.  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.”   82.  Defendant’s website is an online sales establishment and a place of public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website  is a service that is integrated with its online sales establishment.   83.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and/or operates its  Website in the City of New York, making it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-102(1).   85.  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).   86.  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 not sufficiently  intuitive and/or obvious that it 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.   87.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   89.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   90.  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.   91.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   92.  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.  93.  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.   95.  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   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  