(Declaratory Relief)  110. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 109 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  111. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that Belifusa.com  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services  and facilities of Belifusa.com, which LG owns, operates and/or controls, fails to comply with  applicable laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the American 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 blind.  112. 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 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.))   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.))   25. Defendant, LG Household and Health Care America, Inc., controls and operates  Belifusa.com. in New York State and throughout the United States and the world.    26. Belifusa.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for  online sale.  The online store allows the user to learn about the Defendant’s unique skincare  products, learn about the ingredients, read reviews, make purchases, and perform a variety of other  functions.   27. Among the features offered by Belifusa.com are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with LG on social media, using such  sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to learn about the different skincare  products and make purchases; and  (c) learning about the products and their ingredients, read reviews, and about the  company.   28. This case arises out of LG’s policy and practice of denying the blind access to  the goods and services offered by Belifusa.com.  Due to LG’s failure and refusal to remove access  barriers to Belifusa.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to LG, as  well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through Belifusa.com.   29. LG denies the blind access to goods, services and information made available  through Belifusa.com by preventing them from freely navigating Belifusa.com.   31. 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 Belifusa.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 Belifusa.com customers are unable to  determine what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make purchases.   33. Furthermore, Belifusa.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 Belifusa.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.   35. Belifusa.com requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.  Yet, it is  a fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be accessible to Plaintiff and  blind people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page using only the keyboard.   Indeed, Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual  activity of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on the page to another.  Thus,  Belifusa.com’s inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction,  denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or make purchases  on Belifusa.com.   36. Due to Belifusa.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 Belifusa.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, Belifusa.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 Belifusa.com.   38. Plaintiff, Linda Slade, has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on  Belifusa.com, most recently on November 23, 2019, but was unable to do so independently  because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website.  These access barriers have caused  Belifusa.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired  persons.  Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to purchase “The True  Cream – Aqua Bomb.”   39. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Belifusa.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be  inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   40. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Belifusa.com.   41. 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.   42. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   44. 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 Belifusa.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and  services offered by Belifusa.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   45. 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 Belifusa.com and as a result have been denied access to  the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Belifusa.com, during the relevant statutory  period.”   46. 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.   48. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  (a) Whether Belifusa.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  (b) Whether Belifusa.com is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under  the laws of New York;  (c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Belifusa.com, denies the full and  equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  (d) Whether Defendant, through its website, Belifusa.com, denies the full and  equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities in violation of the law of New York.   49. 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 LG has  violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on  their website, Belifusa.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who are  legally blind.   51. 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.   52. 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.    53. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  54. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   55. 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).    57. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Belifusa.com.   58. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of an entity.   59. 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.   60. 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.”   62. 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 websites accessible, including but not limited  to ensuring adequate prompting and accessible alt-text.  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.   63. 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 LG who are blind have  been denied full and equal access to Belifusa.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.   64. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   65. 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 Belifusa.com in violation of Title III of the Americans  with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   66. 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.   67. 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.   69. 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.  70. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   71. 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.”.   72. Belifusa.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     73. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Belifusa.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. § 292(1).   74. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Belifusa.com, causing Belifusa.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.   76. 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.”   77. 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.   79. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   80. 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 Belifusa.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.   81. 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.   82. 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.   83. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   84. 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.  85. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   87. 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 . . .”   88. 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.”   89. Belifusa.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     90. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates Belifusa.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   91. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Belifusa.com, causing Belifusa.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.   93. 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 . . .”   94. 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 . . .”   95. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   96. 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.   97. 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.  98. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 97 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  