23. The Defendant’s website is offered to the public. The website offers features that should allow  all consumers to access the goods and services that the Defendant offers through its physical  locations, including, but not limited to, features that allow consumers to find information about  location addresses and hours, detailed information pertaining to the services it offers in stores,  the Find a Studio feature, promotional Introductory Offers, and other services.   25. 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 JAWS  screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. The plaintiff has visited the website on  separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   26. During the plaintiff’s visits to the website, the last occurring in May 2018, the plaintiff  encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that  denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the website, as  well as to the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s locations in New York by being  unable to learn more information about location addresses and hours, detailed information  pertaining to the services it offers in stores, the Find a Studio feature, promotional Introductory  Offers, and other services, among other things readily available to sighted individuals.   28. Due to the inaccessibility of 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,  goods, and services the defendant offers to the public on its website. The access barriers the  plaintiff encountered have caused 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.   29. These access barriers on Defendant’s website have deterred the plaintiff from visiting the  Defendant’s physical store locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals because:  the plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of Defendant’s locations on  its website, preventing the plaintiff from visiting the locations to view and purchase Products  and/or services. The plaintiff intends to visit Defendant’s website and physical locations in the  near future if the plaintiff could access Defendant’s website.   31. 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 people.   32. Because simple compliance with WCAG 2.0 would provide the plaintiff and other visually- impaired consumers 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 individuals, including the plaintiff; failing to construct and maintain a website that is  sufficiently intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, 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 consumers, such as the plaintiff, as a  member of a protected class.   33. The Defendant therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination against others, as alleged herein.   34. 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).   36. If Defendant’s website were accessible, the plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually- impaired people could independently access information about location addresses and hours,  detailed information pertaining to the services it offers in stores, the Find a Studio feature,  promotional Introductory Offers, and other services.   37. Although the Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding maintaining and  operating Defendant’s website, the Defendant lack a plan and policy reasonably calculated to  make Defendant’s website fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind  and other visually-impaired consumers.   39. Without injunctive relief, the plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will continue to  be unable to independently use Defendant’s website, violating their rights.  40. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 in Defendant’s physical locations, during  the relevant statutory period.   41. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to certify a New York  State subclass 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 in Defendant’s physical  locations, during the relevant statutory period.   42. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 individuals in the City  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 in Defendant’s physical  locations, during the relevant statutory period.   44. The plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class. The class, similarly to the plaintiff, are severely  visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that the Defendant violated the ADA,  NYSHRL, and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on Defendant’s  website so it can be independently accessible to the class.   45. The plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class because  the plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and experienced in complex  class action litigation, and because the plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the class. 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.   46. 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.   48. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the class, repeats and realleges every allegation of  the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   49. 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).   50. Defendant’s locations 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  locations. Defendant’s website is a service that is heavily integrated with these locations and  is a gateway thereto.   51. 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 goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   52. 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).   54. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the regulations  promulgated thereunder. The 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, the 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. The Defendant failed to take any prompt and equitable steps  to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   56. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   57. 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.   58. Defendant’s physical locations 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 the  Defendant. Defendant’s website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical  locations and is a gateway thereto.   59. The Defendant is subject to the NYSHRL because they own and operate their physical  locations and website. The Defendant is persons within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law §  292(1).   61. 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.   62. 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.   63. 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 the Defendant.   65. The Defendant have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   66. The Defendant discriminate, and will continue to discriminate against the plaintiff and the New  York State sub-class 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 and its physical locations under § 296(2), et seq., and/or its implementing  regulations. Unless the Court enjoins the Defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   67. Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of NYSHRL and therefore the plaintiff and the  New York State sub-class invoke their right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   68. The plaintiff and the New York State sub-class are also entitled to compensatory damages, and  civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c), et seq., for each and every offense.   69. The plaintiff and the New York State sub-class are also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees  and costs.   70. Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class pray for judgment as set  forth below.  72. The plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil Rights  Law § 41.   73. 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 ….   74. 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.   75. Defendant’s New York physical locations 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 the Defendant and Defendant’s website is a service that is heavily  integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   76. The Defendant is subject to NYSCRL because it owns and operates Defendant’s physical  locations and website. The Defendant is persons within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Rights Law  § 40-c(2).   78. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states 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.   79. 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.   80. The Defendant have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory  conduct. These violations are ongoing.   81. The Defendant discriminated, and will continue to discriminate, against the plaintiff and the  New York State sub-class on the basis of disability and the plaintiff and the New York State  sub-class are being directly or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges thereof in § 40, et seq., and/or its  implementing regulations.   83. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the New York City sub-class, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   84. 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.   85. Defendant’s locations are sales establishments and public accommodations within the  definition of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9), and their website is a service that is  heavily integrated with its establishments and is a gateway thereto.   86. The Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because they own and operate its physical locations in  the City of New York and their website, making them persons within the meaning of N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-102(1).   87. The 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. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that the Defendant make  available to the non-disabled public.   89. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the New York 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 the Defendant have: constructed and maintained a website that is  inaccessible to blind class members with knowledge of the discrimination; constructed and  maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or obvious that is inaccessible to blind  class members; and/or failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   90. The Defendant have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   91. As such, the Defendant discriminated, and will continue to discriminate, against the plaintiff  and the New York City subclass 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 and establishments under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing  regulations. Unless the Court enjoins the Defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, the plaintiff and the New York City subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   93. The plaintiff and the New York City subclass are 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.   94. The plaintiff and the New York City subclass are also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and  costs.   95. Under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120 and § 8-126 and the remedies, procedures, and  rights set forth and incorporated therein the plaintiff and the New York City subclass pray for  judgment as set forth below.  96. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class, repeats and realleges every allegation of the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   97. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that the plaintiff  contends, and is informed and believes that the Defendant deny, that Defendant’s website  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods,  services, and facilities of its website and by extension its physical locations, which the  Defendant own(s), operate(s) and control(s), and fails to comply with applicable laws  including, but not limited to, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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.   ADA   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   NYCHRL   NYSCRL   NYSHRL  