21.  Defendant is a swimwear company that owns and operates the website,  www.dolfinswimwear.com (its “Website”), offering features which should allow  all consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant ensures the  delivery of throughout the United States, including New York State.   22.  Defendant’s Website offers its products and services for online sale and general  delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to  browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions and prices, and avail  consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.   23.  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  NVDA screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the  Website using a screen-reader.   24.  Plaintiff most recently visited Defendant’s website in February of 2020 to  potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a  user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website’s lack of a  variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from  being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant’s public  accommodation.   26.  Many features on the Website also fail to contain a proper label element or title  attribute for each field. This is a problem for the visually impaired because the  screen reader fails to communicate the purpose of the page element. It also leads to  the user not being able to understand what he or she is expected to insert into the  subject field. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits  of the Website equally to sighted users.   27.  Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements. This was a  problem for Plaintiff because in certain instances the screen reader failed to  distinguish one page from another. In order to fix this problem, Defendant must  change the title elements for each page.    28.  The Website also contains a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non- existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing  due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website  once a broken link is encountered. For example, upon coming across a link of  interest, Plaintiff was redirected to an error page. However, the screen-reader failed  to communicate that the link was broken. As a result, Plaintiff could not get back  to his original search.   29.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy  Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do.    31.  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 facilities, products, 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 visiting the Website, presently and in the future.     32.  If the Website were equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate  the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   33.  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 people.   35.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   36.  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).   38.  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 disabled individuals.   39.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding maintaining  and operating its Website, Defendant lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated  to make them fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind  and other visually-impaired consumers.    41.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  42.  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,  during the relevant statutory period.   43.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks 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, during the relevant statutory period.    45.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the Plaintiff, are  severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has  violated the ADA or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on  its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   46.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class  Members because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent  and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no  interests antagonistic to the Class Members. Class certification of the claims is  appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused  to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole.   47.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because  fact and legal questions 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 this litigation.   48.  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 people with visual disabilities  throughout the United States.  49.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   50.  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).   51.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodations within the definition of Title III  of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service that is offered to the  general public, and as such, must be equally accessible to all potential consumers.   52.  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).   53.  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).   55.  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.   56.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  57.  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.   59.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   60.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website, making  it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   61.  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 such Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, products,  and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   62.  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).   64.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   65.  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 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.   66.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   67.  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.   68.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   69.  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.  70.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York City Sub-Classes  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.   71.  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  products, services and facilities of its Website, 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, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., and N.Y.C.  Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   72.  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.  VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  