24.  Defendant is an automotive retailer. Defendant is an online retailer of new and used cars,  specializing in connecting sellers and buyers using algorithms and data analytics.  Defendant owns, operates, manages, and controls the website, www.cargurus.com (its  “Website”), which allows Defendant to sell vehicles on both a national and international  scale. With few to no brick and mortar stores currently operating today, Defendant’s  Website is an exclusive point of sale for Defendant’s business.    25.  Defendant’s Website is a commercial marketplace. The Website offers features of a  physical marketplace in that it allows all consumers to browse the vehicles listed for sale,  provides details about the vehicles, notifies of significant low prices or special clearances,  and completes purchases of vehicles, which Defendant will thereafter ensure the delivery  of throughout the United States, including in New York State.   26.  Defendant’s Website is integrated with its retail business operations, serving as its gateway.  The Website offers items for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website  offers features which ought to allow users to learn about the items listed on Defendant’s  site and services, browse for items, information, access navigation bar descriptions, prices,  sales, coupons, and discount items, as well as to simply peruse the numerous items offered  for sale. The features offered by www.cargurus.com include product descriptions,  information about the company, review boards, and purchase portals.  -9-   27.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny Plaintiff and  other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website, thereby denying the facilities  and services that are offered and integrated with its retail operations. Due to its 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 retail operations and the  numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through its Website.   28.  Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer  without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff has visited the Website on  separate occasions using her NVDA screen-reader.   29.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, www.cargurus.com, the last occurring in February  of 2021, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers which effectively denied her the full  enjoyment of the goods and services of the Website. Plaintiff visited Defendant’s Website  with an intent to browse and attempt to purchase a new Subaru Outback. Despite her  efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted  individual due to the website’s lack of a range of features and accommodations, which  effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to make her desired purchase.    30.  The issues started on the homepage of the site where Plaintiff immediately found that she  was unable to figure out how to navigate to other pages because her reader could not read  the page options to her. She could see that there was text onscreen and could make out  what appeared to be site options, but none of these were readable to her screen-reader, even  when she actually selected them as opposed to just hovering over them.   31.  Even further in the site, Plaintiff quickly found that many features on the Website lacks alt.  text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image. As a result, Plaintiff  -10-  was unable to differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the  Website to adequately describe its content.    32.  Many features on the Website also fail to add a label element or title attribute for each field.  This is a problem for the visually-impaired because the screen reader fails to communicate  the purpose of the page element. It also leads to the user not being able to understand what  she or she is expected to insert into the subject field. This was an issue on Defendant’s  Website particularly with the filters used to narrow the vehicle search, such as the style-  and price-selection filters. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated visually-impaired  users of Defendant’s Website are unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Website  equally to sighted users.   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 her original search.   34.  Plaintiff has made multiple attempts to complete a purchase on www.cargurus.com, most  recently in February of 2021, but was unable to do so independently because of the many  access barriers on Defendant’s website. These access barriers have caused  www.cargurus.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and  visually-impaired persons.    35.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant’s  website the same way sighted individuals do. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered  -11-  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.  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  facilities, products, 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 visiting the Website, presently and  in the future.     37.  But for the Website’s access barriers, Plaintiff would have returned to and further utilized  Defendant’s Website.    38.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate the  Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   39.  Through her 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 people.   40.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 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 sufficiently intuitive   so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff; and,  -12-  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.   41.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect  of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   42.  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).   43.  Because Defendant’s Website has never been equally accessible, and because Defendant  lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to become and  remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2)  and seeks a permanent  injunction requiring:  a. that Defendant retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff (“Mutually  Agreed Upon Consultant”) who shall assist it in improving the accessibility of its  Website so the goods and services on them may be equally accessed and enjoyed  by individuals with vision related disabilities;  b. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to ensure that all  employees involved in website development and content development be given  web accessibility training on a periodic basis, including onsite training to create  accessible content at the design and development stages;  -13-  c. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to perform an  automated accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate whether Website may  be equally accessed and enjoyed by individuals with vision related disabilities on  an ongoing basis;  d. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to perform end- user accessibility/usability testing on a periodic basis with said testing to be  performed by individuals with various disabilities to evaluate whether Website may  be equally accessed and enjoyed by individuals with vision related disabilities on  an ongoing basis;  e. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to create an  accessibility policy that will be posted on its Website, along with an e-mail address  and tollfree phone number to report accessibility-related problems; and  f. that Plaintiff, their counsel and its experts monitor Defendant’s Website for up to  two years after the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant validates it is free of  accessibility errors/violations to ensure it has adopted and implemented adequate  accessibility policies.   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 amounts of money in  developing and maintaining its Website and, through the site, has generated significant  revenue. The invested amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making their  Website equally accessible to visually-impaired consumers.  -14-   46.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will continue to  be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  47.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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, during the relevant statutory period.   48.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks certify a New York City  subclass 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, during the relevant statutory  period.    49.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under   the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public   accommodation” under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment   of its products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment   of its products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.  -15-   50.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly, to the Plaintiff, are severely  visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has violated the ADA,  NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its Website  so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   51.  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, 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.   52.  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 this litigation.   53.  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 people with visual disabilities throughout the United  States.  54.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   55.  Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides:  -16-  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).   56.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodation within the definition of Title III of the  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service that is offered to the general public,  and as such, must be equally accessible to all potential consumers.   57.  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 products,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   58.  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 products,  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).   59.  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,  -17-  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).   60.  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.   61.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  62.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   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.”.  -18-   64.  The Website www.cargurus.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation  within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).   65.  Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and operates  www.cargurus.com. 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 its site, causing www.cargurus.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.   67.  Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law, “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.”   68.  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.”   69.  There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired. These guidelines have been  -19-  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.   70.  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.   71.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory  conduct. These violations are ongoing.   72.  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 www.cargurus.com under N.Y. Exec. Law §  296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.    73.  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.   74.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the NYSHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  -20-   75.  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.   76.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   77.  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.  78.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   79.  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.”   80.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within the  definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   81.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website, 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 with  such Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, products, and services that Defendant makes  available to the non-disabled public.  -21-   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).   84.  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 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.  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 subclass on the basis of disability in the  full and equal enjoyment of the products, 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  -22-  in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the class will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   87.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore Plaintiff  invokes her 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 herself and the Class and New York 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 products, services,  and facilities of its Website, which Defendant owns, operations 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.  -23-  DECLARATORY RELIEF   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  