28.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s website,  and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered thereby. Due to  Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and  visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s  numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   29.  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.  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.    33.  The Website also contained 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.  Defendant Must Remove Barriers To Its Website   34.  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.    36.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   37.  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.   38.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide  Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, Plaintiff  alleges that Defendant has engaged 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  visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;  b.  Failure to construct and maintain a website that is not sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;  and,  c.  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  Plaintiff, as a member of a protected class.   39.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   43.  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.   44.  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.    45.  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.    46.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  48.  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.    49.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York City Sub-Class 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 by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.    51.  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.   52.  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, including ADA 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.   53.  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.   54.  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.  56.  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).   57.  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   58.  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).   59.  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).   61.  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.   62.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  63.  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.   65.  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.    66.  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).   67.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  therewith to be completely inaccessible to the blind. Their inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes  available to the non-disabled public.   68.  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".   70.  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 Defendant.   71.  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.   72.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   74.  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.   75.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   76.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   77.  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.  78.  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.   80.  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.   81.  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).   82.  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 therewith to be completely inaccessible to the blind. The inaccessibility  denies blind consumers full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   83.  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).   85.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   86.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate, against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and 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 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 Sub-Class  will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   87.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   88.  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.   89.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   90.  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.  91.  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.   92.  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 goods and  services of its Website, which Defendant owns, operates 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., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code  § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   93.  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.  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  