2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons  to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   26.  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.   27.  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.   28.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in June, 2020, in  an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple  access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted  person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made  available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and  services of the Website by being unable to learn more information about clothing,  accessories and other products available online for purchase, as well as information relating  to pricing, ordering merchandise, shipping, terms and conditions and return and privacy  policies.   31.  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   32.  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.    33.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s Website, and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals because: Plaintiff  was unable to use and enjoy the Website in the same manner as sighted individuals do,  preventing Plaintiff from using the Website to purchase items and to view the items.   34.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   36.  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.   37.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   38.  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).   40.  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.   41.  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.    43.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  44.  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 offered by  Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.   45.  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.    46.  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.    48.  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, NYSYRHL 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.   50.  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 their litigation.   51.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining their 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.  52.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   53.  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).   54.  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   56.  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).   57.  Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination  also 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; and 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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).   59.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  60.  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.   61.  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.”   62.  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.    63.  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).   65.  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".   66.  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.”   67.  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.   69.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   70.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate,  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members 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 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 the Sub-Class Members will continue to  suffer irreparable harm.   71.  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.   72.  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.   73.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   75.  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.   76.  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.”   77.  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.   78.  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).   79.  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.   81.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  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 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.   82.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   84.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   85.  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.   86.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   87.  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.  88.  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.   89.  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.   90.  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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  