(Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.))   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   27. Defendant, Hu Master Holdings LLC, controls and operates Hukitchen.com. in  New York State and throughout the United States.    28. Hukitchen.com is a commercial website that offers products and services   for online sale.  The online store allows the user to browse chocolate bars, hunks, gems, and  crackers, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.   29. Among the features offered by Hukitchen.com are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Hu on social media, using such  sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to view the different flavors of chocolate  and nut products, make purchase; and  (c) learning about the company and its story, promotions, and recipes, amongst  other features.   30. This case arises out of Hu’s policy and practice of denying the blind access to  the goods and services offered by Hukitchen.com.  Due to Hu’s failure and refusal to remove  access barriers to Hukitchen.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access  to Hu, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through  Hukitchen.com.   32. Hukitchen.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by  Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software.  These barriers are  pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down  menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of  keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the  same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   33. Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical  image on a website.  Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a  screen-reader can speak the alternative text while sighted users see the picture.  Alt-text does not  change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over  the picture.  There are many important pictures on Hukitchen.com that lack a text equivalent.  The  lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description  of the graphics (screen-readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of the image to  a blind computer user).  As a result, Plaintiff and blind Hukitchen.com customers are unable to  determine what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make purchases.   36. Similarly, on Hukitchen.com, blind customers are not aware if the desired  products, such as chocolate-covered almonds, have been added to the shopping cart because the  screen-reader does not indicate the type of product.  Therefore, blind customers are essentially  prevented from purchasing any items on Hukitchen.com.   37. Furthermore, Hukitchen.com lacks accessible image maps.  An image map is  a function that combines multiple words and links into one single image.  Visual details on this  single image highlight different “hot spots” which, when clicked on, allow the user to jump to  many different destinations within the website.  For an image map to be accessible, it must  contain alt-text for the various “hot spots.”  The image maps on Hukitchen.com’s menu page do  not contain adequate alt-text and are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and the other blind  individuals attempting to make a purchase.  When Plaintiff tried to access the menu link in order  to make a purchase, she was unable to access it completely.   38. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to locate the shopping cart because the  shopping cart form does not specify the purpose of the shopping cart.  As a result, blind  customers are denied access to the shopping cart.  Consequently, blind customers are  unsuccessful in adding products into their shopping carts and cannot checkout and are essentially  prevented from purchasing items on Hukitchen.com.   39. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Hukitchen.com even more time consuming and confusing for  Plaintiff and blind consumers.   41. Due to Hukitchen.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in  turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and-mortar  retailers.  Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the stores or require assistance in  navigating the stores.  By contrast, if Hukitchen.com was accessible, a blind person could  independently investigate products and make purchases via the Internet as sighted individuals  can and do.  According to WCAG 2.1 Guideline 2.4.1, a mechanism is necessary to bypass  blocks of content that are repeated on multiple webpages because requiring users to extensively  tab before reaching the main content is an unacceptable barrier to accessing the website.   Plaintiff must tab through every navigation bar option and footer on Defendant’s website in an  attempt to reach the desired service.  Thus, Hukitchen.com’s inaccessible design, which requires  the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to  independently make purchases on Hukitchen.com.   42. Hukitchen.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal  access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Hukitchen.com and who would otherwise be able to  fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Hukitchen.com in New York State and  throughout the United States.   44. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Hukitchen.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be  inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   45. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Hukitchen.com.   46. Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not  limited to the following policies or practices:  (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 sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious that 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.   47. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   48. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,  the goods, benefits and services of Hukitchen.com, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an  injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of defendant’s  conduct.  49. 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 blind individuals in the United States who have attempted  to access Hukitchen.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and  services offered by Hukitchen.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   50. 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 blind individuals in New  York State who have attempted to access Hukitchen.com and as a result have been denied access  to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Hukitchen.com, during the relevant statutory  period.”   51. There are hundreds of thousands of visually-impaired persons in New York  State.  There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States who are visually- impaired. Id.  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.   52. This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an   inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of Hukitchen.com.   Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, blind persons have  been and are being denied full and equal access to independently browse, select and shop on  Hukitchen.com.   54. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.  The class,  similar to the Plaintiff, is severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claims Hu has  violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on  their website, Hukitchen.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who  are legally blind.   55. 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.   57. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of 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.    58. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  59. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   60. Title III of the American 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).    61. Hukitchen.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).     62. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Hukitchen.com.   64. 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 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.   65. 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.”   66. In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III),  unlawful discrimination also includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps as may  be necessary to ensure that no individual with 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.”   68. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Patrons of Hu who are blind have  been denied full and equal access to Hukitchen.com, 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.   69. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   70. 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 Hukitchen.com in violation of Title III of the  Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   71. 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.   72. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA, and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   73. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   74. 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.  75. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   76. 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.”.   77. Hukitchen.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     78. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Hukitchen.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. §  292(1).   79. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Hukitchen.com, causing Hukitchen.com to be completely inaccessible  to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons the full and equal access to the facilities,  goods and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   81. 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.”   82. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   83. 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.  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 sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious that 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.   85. 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 Hukitchen.com under N.Y. Exec. Law § 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 class will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   86. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the New York State  Human Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   87. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   88. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   89. 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.  90. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   91. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   93. 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.”   94. Hukitchen.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     95. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates Hukitchen.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   96. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Hukitchen.com, causing Hukitchen.com to be completely  inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   98. 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 . . .”   99. 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 . . .”  100. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  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 on the basis of disability are  being directly indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  102. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense. 