(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   20.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Massachusetts subclass pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally blind individuals in the  Commonwealth of Massachusetts who have attempted to access the Website and as a result have  been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Defendant, during the  relevant statutory period.”   21.  There are hundreds of thousands of visually impaired persons in the  Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States  who are visually impaired. 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.   22.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website that denies blind persons access to the goods and services of the Website and  the Restaurant. 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 the Website  and by extension the goods and services offered through the Website by Defendant.   24.  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  Defendant has violated the ADA 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 blind.   25.  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.   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 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.   29.  Defendant operates the Restaurant, a chain of ice cream cafes offering ice cream,  coffee, and other desserts with 12 locations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.   30.  The Website is a service and benefit offered by Defendant throughout the United  States, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Website is owned, controlled and/or  operated by Defendant.   31.  Among the features offered by the Website are the following:  (a)  information about the Restaurant, allowing persons who wish to dine at the  Restaurant to learn its locations, hours, and phone numbers;  (b)  a menu;  (c)  an online store, allowing users to purchase cakes, pies, and Cow Cards;  (d)  information about catering; and  (e)  information about the Restaurant’s history, employment opportunities, and  donations.   32.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of denying the blind 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, blind individuals have  been and are being denied equal access to the Restaurant, as well as to the numerous goods,  services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   33.  Defendant denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through the Website by preventing them from freely navigating the Website.   35.  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 reading 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 websites and the  information, products, and services contained therein.   36.  There are well established guidelines for making websites accessible to blind  people. These guidelines have been in place for several years and have been followed successfully  by other large business entities in making their websites accessible. The Web Accessibility  Initiative (WAI), a project of the World Wide Web Consortium, which is the leading standards  organization of the Web, has developed guidelines for website accessibility. The federal  government has also promulgated website accessibility standards under Section 508 of the  Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines are readily available via the Internet, so that a business  designing a website can easily access them. These guidelines recommend several basic  components for making websites accessible, including, but not limited to: ensuring that all  functions can be performed using a keyboard and not just a mouse; adding alternative text to non- text content; and adding headings so that blind people can easily navigate the site. Without these  very basic components, a website will be inaccessible to a blind person using a screen reader.   38.  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 a sighted user sees 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. The images of cakes on the “Ready-To-Go Cakes” page lack alt-text. 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.) In fact, screen readers cannot even recognize that the images exist. As a result,  Plaintiff and blind customers are unable to determine what is on the Website, browse the site, and  investigate the Restaurant’s products.   39.  According to WCAG 2.0 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 menu option on the Website to reach the desired service. Additionally, in  order for blind users to access the individual location links on the image map on the “Where to  Find Us” page, they must tab through every menu option in both the header and the footer. Thus,  the Website’s inaccessible design denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently  navigate the Website.   41.  WCAG 2.0 Guideline 2.4.4 states that the purpose of each link must be  determinable. Sighted users can ascertain the purpose of links by reading the link text and the  surrounding descriptions and by recognizing the images that the links are embedded in. Blind  users, however, must rely on a combination of screen reading software and proper coding to  determine what sighted users can recognize at a glance. On the “Where to Find Us” page, the links  to the Grubhub pages are incorrect labeled, so blind users cannot determine what the links are for.  Thus, the Website is inaccessible to blind users attempting to use and browse the Website.   42.  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 Restaurant.   43.  Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to browse the locations on the Website, most  recently in January 2018, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access  barriers on the Website. These access barriers have caused the Website to be inaccessible to, and  not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   45.  As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that the Website  contains access barriers causing it to be inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and  visually impaired individuals.   46.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits, and services of the Website and the Restaurant.   47.  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 blind 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 blind class members; and/or  (c)  failing to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   49.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   50.  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).   51.  The Restaurant is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). The Website is a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendant. The Website is a service that is by and integrated with the Restaurant. Independent of  the Restaurant, the Website is also a public accommodation.   52.  Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates the  Website.   53.  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.   55.  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.”    56.  In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful  discrimination also includes, among other things, “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, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result  in an undue burden.”   57.  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 websites accessible, including but not limited to:  ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the basic  components to make the Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   59.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    60.  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 and the Restaurant in violation of Title III of the Americans  with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   61.  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.   62.  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.   63.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     65.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   66.  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 blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services and  facilities of the Website and by extension the Restaurant, 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. prohibiting discrimination against  the blind.   67.  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. 