(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  110. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully 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 Eataly.com  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services  and facilities of Eataly.com and by extension Eataly, which Eataly 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 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.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  (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)   (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)   22.  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 Eataly.com and as a result have been denied access to  the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Eataly, during the relevant statutory period.”   23.  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.   24.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of Eataly.com and  Eataly’s restaurant and store. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access  barriers, blind persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to independently  browse, select and shop on Eataly.com and by extension the goods and services offered through  Defendant’s website to Eataly’s New York location.   26.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class. The class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Eataly  have violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers  on their website, Eataly.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who are  legally blind.   27.  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.   28.  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.   30.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  31.  Eataly operates Eataly’s location, the largest Italian marketplace, comprised of a  restaurant, groceries and counters for food, baked goods and beverages. The company currently  operates 1 location in the state of New York.   32.  Eataly.com is a service and benefit offered by Eataly and Eataly’s New York  location throughout the United States, including New York State. Eataly.com is owned, controlled  and/or operated by Eataly.   33.  Eataly.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale  that are available at Eataly’s location. The online store allows the user to browse grocery items,  descriptions, product details and prices; view discounts and the availability of seasonal delicacies;  find Eataly’s New York location; and perform a variety of other functions.   35.  This case arises out of Eataly’s policy and practice of denying the blind access to  Eataly.com, including the goods and services offered by Eataly through Eataly.com. Due to  Eataly’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to Eataly.com, blind individuals have been  and are being denied equal access to Eataly’s New York location, as well as to the numerous goods,  services and benefits offered to the public through Eataly.com.   36.  Eataly denies the blind access to goods, services and information made available  through Eataly.com by preventing them from freely navigating Eataly.com.   37.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting business  and for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc., for sighted and blind persons.   38.  The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Except for a blind person  whose residual vision is still sufficient to use magnification, screen access software provides the  only method by which a blind person can independently access the Internet. Unless websites are  designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons are unable to fully access Internet websites  and the information, products and services contained therein.   40.  Eataly.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and  blind persons using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers are pervasive and  include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible forms, inaccessible image  maps, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling; the denial of keyboard access; and the  requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   42.  Similarly, Eataly.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 Eataly.com do not contain adequate alt-text and are  therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and other blind individuals.   43.  Eataly.com also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to  allow blind shoppers who use screen readers to locate and accurately fill-out online forms. On a  shopping site such as Eataly.com, these forms include search fields to locate food, beverage, and  bakery items, fields that specify the number of items desired, and fields used to fill-out personal  information, including address and credit card information. Due to the lack of adequate labeling,  Plaintiff and blind customers cannot easily make purchases or inquiries as to Eataly’s food and  drink items or specials, nor can they enter their personal identification and financial information  with confidence and security.   44.  More specifically, Plaintiff and blind persons cannot assess whether an item, such  as food, gift cards, or gifts, have been added to the online shopping cart because the added item  presents in the form of a pop-up on the site. Therefore, Plaintiff and blind persons would have to  rely on a sighted person to confirm that the item has been added to the cart and complete the  transaction. Additionally, the employment opportunities are read as a list with no distinctions,  where a sighted person could see that it is arranged according to city, and it is impossible for a  blind person to find the address of the New York location on the website.    46.  Eataly.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, Eataly.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 Eataly.com.   47.  Due to Eataly.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in turn  spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at the Eataly New York location. Some  blind customers may require a driver to get to the restaurant and store or require assistance in  navigating the space. By contrast, if Eataly.com was accessible, a blind person could independently  investigate products and programs and make purchases via the Internet as sighted individuals can  and do.   48.  Eataly.com thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Eataly.com and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of Eataly’s restaurant and store in New York State.   49.  Plaintiff JOSE DEL-ORDEN has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase  on Eataly.com, most recently in March 2016, but was unable to do so independently because of  the many access barriers on Defendant’s website, causing Eataly.com to be inaccessible and not  independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   51.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Eataly.com and Eataly restaurant and store.   52.  Eataly 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.   53.  Eataly utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect  of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  54.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations  as if set forth fully herein.   56.  Eataly restaurant and store located in New York State and throughout the United  States is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the definition of 42 U.S.C. §  12181(7)(E). Eataly.com is a service, privilege or advantage of Eataly’s New York location.  Eataly.com is a service that is by and integrated with these restaurants.   57.  Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because they own and operate Eataly.   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 large 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 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.   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 Eataly who are blind have  been denied full and equal access to Eataly.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 their  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 Eataly.com and Eataly in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,  42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   67.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   68.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     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 realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth 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.”   73.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because they own and  operate the Eataly and Eataly.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 Eataly.com, causing Eataly.com and the services integrated with  Eataly’s New York location 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.    75.  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.”   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.”   78.  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 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.   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 on the basis of disability in the full and equal  enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or  opportunities of Eataly.com and Eataly 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 class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   82.  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.   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 served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    86.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth 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 …”     89.  Eataly located in New York State and throughout the United States are sales  establishments and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40- c(2). Eataly.com is a service, privilege or advantage of Eataly. Eataly.com is a service that is by  and integrated with these restaurants.   90.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own and operate  Eataly and Eataly.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 Eataly.com, causing Eataly.com and the services integrated with  Eataly 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.    92.  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 large 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 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.   94.  Specifically, under NY Civ 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 or  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 Law § 40 et seq. for each and every offense.  98.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  