(Declaratory Relief) (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  106.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   107.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that the Website contains  access barriers denying deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals the full and equal access to the  goods and services of the Website, which Defendant owns, operates, and/or 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., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the deaf and hard of  hearing.   108.  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 New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law,  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.) (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.) (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   22.   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 deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in the United States who have  attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of  goods and services offered by the Website during the relevant statutory period.”     23.   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 deaf and hard-of-hearing  individuals in New York State who have attempted to access the Website and as a result have  been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by the Website, during the  relevant statutory period.”    24.   There are hundreds of thousands of deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals in New  York State. There are approximately 36 million people in the United States who are deaf or hard  of hearing. Thus, the persons in the Class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is  impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to  the Court.    25.   This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying deaf and hard-of-hearing persons access to the goods and services  of the Website. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, deaf  and hard-of-hearing persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to  independently browse and watch videos on the Website.    26. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including without  limitation, the following:  a. Whether the Website is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;   b. Whether the Website is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under the laws   of New York;   c. Whether Defendant through the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its   goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with   hearing disabilities in violation of the ADA; and   d. Whether Defendant through the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its   goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  hearing disabilities in violation of the laws of New York.    27.   The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the Class. The Class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are deaf or hard of hearing, and claim that Defendant has violated the  ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on the  Website, so it can be independently accessible to the Class of people who are legally deaf or hard  of hearing.    28.   Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class 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 members of the Class. Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to 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.    29. 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.    30.   Judicial efficiency will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action  in that it will avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the  filing of numerous similar suits by people with hearing disabilities throughout the United States.    31.   References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the Class, unless otherwise indicated.   32.   Defendant operates the Website, which is an online learning community for  people who want to learn from educational videos. It delivers information to millions of people  across the United States.     33.   The Website is a service and benefit offered by Defendant throughout the United  States, including New York State. The Website is owned, controlled and/or operated by  Defendant.    34.   The Website allows users to browse, view, and purchase educational videos about  many topics and skills and to browse and view previews prior to making purchases. Defendant’s  videos are available with the click of a mouse and are played through the Internet on computers,  cell phones, and other electronic devices.    35.   This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of denying the deaf and  hard of hearing full and equal access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by  Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers  to the Website, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals have been and are being denied equal access  to the Website, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public  through the Website.    36.   Defendant denies the deaf and hard of hearing access to goods, services, and  information made available through the Website by preventing them from freely enjoying,  interpreting, and understanding the content on the Website.    37.   The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting  business and for doing everyday activities such as reading news, watching videos, etc., for deaf  and hard-of-hearing persons.    38.   The deaf and hard of hearing access videos through closed captioning, which is a  transcription or translation of the audio portion of a video as it occurs, sometimes including  description of non-speech elements. Except for a deaf or hard-of-hearing person whose residual  hearing is still sufficient to apprehend the audio portion of the video, closed captioning provides  the only method by which a deaf or hard-of-hearing person can independently access the video.  Unless websites are designed to allow for use in this manner, deaf and hard-of-hearing persons  are unable to fully access the service provided through the videos on the Website.    39.   There are well-established guidelines for making websites accessible to disabled  people. These guidelines have been in place for several years and have been followed  successfully by other large business entities in making their websites accessible. The Web  Accessibility Initiative (“WAI”), a project of the World Wide Web Consortium which is the  leading standards organization of the Web, has developed guidelines for website accessibility,  called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”). The federal government has also  promulgated website accessibility standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These  guidelines are readily available via the Internet, so that a business designing a website can easily  access them. These guidelines recommend several basic components for making websites  accessible, including but not limited to adding closed captioning to video content.     40.   The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and  other deaf or hard-of-hearing persons, including but not limited to the lack of closed captioning.  This barrier is in violation of WCAG 2.1 Guideline 1.2.2, which mandates that video content  contain captioning.     41. The Website contains numerous educational videos that lack captioning. The videos  Watercolor in the Woods: A Beginner’s Guide to Painting the Natural World by Rosalie  Haizlett; Illustrating Expressive Portraits in Procreate by Maia Faddoul; and Donut Flat Lays:  Tips for Better Overhead Photos by Tabitha Park are amongst many others on the Website do not  contain closed captioning. The lack of captioning prevents Plaintiff and other deaf or hard-of- hearing people from understanding the content of those videos, thus preventing them from  learning about the topics being taught.    42.   Due to the Website’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and other deaf or hard-of-hearing  individuals must in turn spend time, energy, and/or money to apprehend the audio portion of the  videos offered by Defendant. Some deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals may require an  interpreter to apprehend the audio portion of the video or require assistance from their friends or  family. By contrast, if the Website was accessible, a deaf or hard-of-hearing person could  independently watch the videos and enjoy the services provided by Defendant as hearing  individuals can and do.    43.  The Website thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in New York State.    44.   Plaintiff attempted to watch the educational videos Watercolor in the Woods: A  Beginner’s Guide to Painting the Natural World by Rosalie Haizlett; Illustrating Expressive  Portraits in Procreate by Maia Faddoul; and Donut Flat Lays: Tips for Better Overhead Photos  by Tabitha Park on the Website most recently on May 15, 2020 but was unable to do so  independently because of the lack of closed captioning on the Website, causing it to be  inaccessible and not independently usable by deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.     45.   As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that the Website  contains access barriers causing the Website to be inaccessible, and not independently usable by,  deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.    46.   These access barriers have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits, and services of Defendant and the Website.    47.   Defendant engages in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not limited  to the following policies or practices:   (a) constructing and maintaining a website that is inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing  Class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or   (b) constructing and maintaining a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or obviously  inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members; and/or   (c) failing to take actions to correct access barriers in the face of substantial harm and  discrimination to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members.    48. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria, and methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   49.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.    50.   Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a),  provides that “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.” Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or  criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of  disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).    51.   Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by Title III of  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7), a “place of education,” a “place of exhibition or entertainment,” a  “place of recreation,” and “service establishments.”     52.   Defendant has failed to make its videos accessible to individuals who are deaf or  hard of hearing by failing to provide closed captioning for videos displayed on the Website.    53.   Discrimination under Title III includes the denial of an opportunity for the person  who is deaf or hard of hearing to participate in programs or services or providing a service that is  not as effective as what is provided to others. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I-III).    54.   Discrimination specifically includes the failure to provide “effective  communication” to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals through auxiliary aids and services,  such as captioning, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(III); 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(C).    55.   Discrimination also includes the failure to maintain accessible features of  facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with  disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §36.211.    56.   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.    57.   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 and  the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, or accommodations, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other  individuals.    58.   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.”     59.   In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful  discrimination also includes “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.”    60.   The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §  12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Individuals who are deaf and hard of  hearing have been denied full and equal access to the Website 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.     61.   Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.     62.   Modifying its policies, practices, and services by providing closed captions to  make its videos accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals would not fundamentally alter  the nature of Defendant’s business, nor would it pose an undue burden to this flourishing  company.    63.   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 the Website in violation of Title III of the Americans  with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.    64.   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.    65.   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.    66.   Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.      67.   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.   68.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.    69.   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.”    70.   Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by N.Y. Exec.  Law § 292(9).     71.   Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).    72.   Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing the videos displayed on the Website to be  completely inaccessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. This inaccessibility denies deaf and  hard-of-hearing patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant  makes available to the non-disabled public.     73.   Specifically, 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.”    74.   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.”    75.   Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the class  on the basis of a disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exc.  Law § 296(2) in that Defendant has:    (a) constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or   (b) constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or obvious that is  inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members; and/or   (c) failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial harm and  discrimination to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members.    76.   Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    77.   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 the 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 members of the Subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.    78.   The actions of Defendant 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.    79.   Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and  fines pursuant to N.Y. Exc. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.    80.   Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.    81.   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.    82.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.     83.   Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 41.   84.   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 . . . . ”      85.   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.”    86.   The Website is a public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 40-c(2).     87.   Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and operates  the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).    88.   Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing videos on the Website to be completely  inaccessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. This inaccessibility denies deaf and hard-of-hearing  patrons full and equal access to the goods and services that Defendant makes available to the  non-disabled public.     89.   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 . . . . ”    90.   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 . . . . ”    91.   Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    92.   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  or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages, facilities and  privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.     93.   Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per instance,  as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each and every  offense.   94.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.    95.   N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) provides that “It shall be an unlawful  discriminatory practice for any person who is the owner, franchisor, franchisee, lessor, lessee,  proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public  accommodation . . . [b]ecause of any person’s . . . disability . . . directly or indirectly . . . [t]o  refuse, withhold from or deny to such person the full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and  conditions, of any of the accommodations, advantages, services, facilities or privileges of the  place or provider of public accommodation.”    96.   The Website is a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-102.    97.   Defendant is subject to City Law because it owns and operates the Website.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102.    98.   Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services integrated  with the Website to be completely inaccessible to the deaf. This inaccessibility denies deaf  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant makes available  to the non-disabled public. Specifically, Defendant is required to “make reasonable  accommodation to the needs of persons with disabilities . . . it is an unlawful discriminatory  practice for any person prohibited by the provisions of [§ 8-107 et seq.] from discriminating on  the basis of disability not to provide a 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. Administrative Code § 8-107(15)(a).    99.   Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the class  on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) and §  8107(15)(a) in that Defendant has:  (a) constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible  to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or   (b) constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or obvious that is  inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members; and/or   (c) failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial harm and  discrimination to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members.   100.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   101.  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 the 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 Subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   102.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of City Law and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   103.  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.   104.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   105.  Pursuant to 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.  