(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  103. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  104.  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.  105.  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 State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 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 Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law,  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   19.  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.  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.”   21.  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.   23.  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.   24.  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.   26.  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.   27.  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.   28.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the Class, unless otherwise indicated.  29.  Defendant operates the Website, which provides videos, information, and articles  relating to science. The website also allows visitors to purchase books, magazines, and content  via its online store. It delivers information and subscriptions to tens of millions of people across  the United States.    30.  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.   32.  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.   33.  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.   34.  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.   35.  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.   37.  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.    38.  The Website contains multiple videos that lack captioning. The videos “How  Your GPS Uses Einstein’s Relativity,” “How Cats Leapt from the Wild to Our Sofas,” “Why Do  Allergies Make You Sneeze,” “If You Think It’s Love, Switch to Decaf: How We Misinterpret  Emotional Arousal,” “Quantum Entanglement-The Movie,” and multiple other videos of the  Website do not contain closed captioning. The lack of captioning prevents Plaintiff, deaf, and  hard-of-hearing people from understanding the content of those videos, thus preventing them  from learning about Defendant’s products and services.   40.  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.   41.  Plaintiff attempted to watch the video “How Your GPS Uses Einstein’s  Relativity” on the Website in October 2018 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.    42.  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.   43.  These access barriers have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment  of, the goods, benefits, and services of Defendant and the Website.   44.  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.   46.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   47.  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).   48.  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”).    49.  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.   50.  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).   52.  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.  65.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   66.  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.”   67.  Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by N.Y. Exec.  Law § 292(9).    68.  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).   70.  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.”   71.  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.”   73.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   74.  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.   75.  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.   76.  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.   77.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   78.  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.   79.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    81.  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 . . . .”     82.  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.”   83.  The Website is a public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 40-c(2).    84.  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).   85.  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.    87.  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 . . . .”   88.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   89.  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.    90.  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.  91.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if  set forth fully herein.   93.  The Website is a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-102(9).    94.  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(1).   95.  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).   97.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   98.  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.  