14.  Defendant is a retailer of CBD products for men and women. Products can  be purchased online, through the Website, or at third party vendors throughout the United  States, including several New York locations.  Products available for purchase at third- party retailers and online include CBD oils, salves, vape cartridges and similar items.     15.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with its retail operation, serving  as its gateway. Through the Website, Defendant’s customers are, inter alia, able to: learn  information about Defendant’s company;  learn information about hemp and CBD,  including how it can be administered and effects; learn about the products available for  purchase on the Website; learn about the return policy; and learn about rewards.    16.  Defendant’s Website is a commercial marketplace.  Through the Website,  customers can learn about Defendant’s products, learn about the return policy, and  complete a purchase.   18.  Plaintiff Nisbett cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen- reading software. He is, however, a proficient screen-reader user and uses it to access the  Internet. He has visited the Website on separate occasions using screen-reading software.   20.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Nisbett, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use  or enjoy the facilities, goods, and services Defendant offer to the public on its Website.  The Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Nisbett encountered have caused a denial of his  full and equal access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the  Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from taking advantage of   Defendant’s retail operations enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.   21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Nisbett could  independently navigate it, learn about Defendant’s products, and complete a purchase, as  sighted users can.     22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Nisbett has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    24.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   25.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Nisbett seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   27.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies on 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.   28.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Nisbett and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its rights.   29.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   30.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  31.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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 enjoyment of  Defendant’s retail operations during the relevant statutory period (“Class Members”).   33.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members and  the New York Subclass Members:  a.  Whether Defendant’s online retail operations constitute a “public  accommodation” or a service or good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III  of the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  39.   Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   40.  Title III of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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).   41.  Defendant’s retail operations constitute a public accommodations under  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Their Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage that is integrated with its retail operations.   43.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny 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. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   44.  Under 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, 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).   46.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Nisbett requests the relief as set forth below.  47.  Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf of the New York Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   48.  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.”   49.  Defendant’s online retail operations and third-party retailers located in the  State of New York constitute a public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of its retail operations.  Defendant’s Website is a service that is by and integrated with the retail operations.   50.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because its owns and operates its retail  operations and the Website. Defendant is a “person” under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   52.  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 being offered or would  result in an undue burden.”   53.  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.”    54.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been  followed by other large business entities and government agencies in making their websites  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  its Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of its business nor result  in an undue burden to them.   56.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Nisbett and New York Subclass Members on the basis of disability in the  full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant’s Website and its retail operations  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 the New  York Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   57.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Nisbett seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   58.  Plaintiff Nisbett is entitled to compensatory damages and civil penalties and  fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   59.  Plaintiff Nisbett is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   61.  Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf the New York City Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   62.  The NYCHRL 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.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(4)(a)   63.  The Website is a public accommodation under NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-102(9).   64.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website,  making it a person under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   65.  Defendant is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove access  barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its online retail  services 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. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   67.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Nisbett and the New York City Subclass Members because  of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its online retail  operations 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 the  New York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   68.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Nisbett seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   69.  Plaintiff Nisbett is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines for each offense. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-120(8), 8-126(a).   70.  Plaintiff Nisbett is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72.  Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   73.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Nisbett 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  goods, services and facilities of its Website and by extension its retail operations, which  Defendant owns, operates 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.,  and N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   74.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate now in order that each  of the parties may know its respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant, Their Website And Their Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  