(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 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 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)   18.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.”    20.  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.   21.  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.   23.  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.   24.  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.   25.  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.   26.  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 hearing disabilities throughout the United  States.   28.  Defendant operates the Website, a news source providing information about  politics, sports, finance and other entertainment information. It delivers important news and  information to hundreds of millions of people across the United States.    29.  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.   30.  The Website allows the user to browse news commentaries, information and  videos. It covers a variety of topics such as politics, finance, sports, technology, and music.  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.   31.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of denying the deaf and  hard of hearing 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.   32.  Defendant denies the deaf and hard of hearing access to goods, services and  information made available through the Website by preventing them from freely navigating the  Website.   34.  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 video on the Website.   35.  The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and  other deaf or hard of hearing persons.    36.  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  and family. By contrast, if the Website was accessible, a deaf or hard of hearing person could  independently watch the videos and enjoy the service provided by Defendant as hearing  individuals can and do.   37.  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.   39.  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.   40.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Defendant and the Website.   41.  Defendant 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 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  obvious that is inaccessible to deaf and hard of hearing class members;  and/or  (c)  failing to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to deaf and hard of hearing class  members.   42.  Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  43.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing  allegations as if set forth fully herein.   45.  Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by Title III of  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) (“place of exhibition and entertainment,” “place of recreation,”  and “service establishments”).    46.  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.   47.  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).   48.  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).   49.  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 disability.  63.  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.”   64.  Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by N.Y. Exec.  Law § 292(9).    65.  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).   66.  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.    67.  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.”   69.  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.   70.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   72.  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.   73.  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.   74.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   75.  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.   76.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    77.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   78.  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 …”     80.  The Website is a public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 40-c(2).    81.  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).   82.  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.    83.  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…”   85.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  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 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.    87.  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.  88.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if  set forth fully herein.   89.  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.”    90.  The Website is a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-102(9).    92.  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 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.  Specifically, 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. Administrative Code § 8- 107(15)(a).   93.  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 § 8- 107(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.   95.  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.   96.  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.   97.  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.   98.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   99.  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. 