27.  Defendant offers the commercial website, https://cangshancuttlery.com/en,  to the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  goods and services offered by the Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such  goods throughout the United States including New York State. The goods and services  offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to, the following, which allow consumers  to purchase professional kitchen knives, knife sets, knife accessories, and other products  available online for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping,  ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies.   28.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s website,  and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered thereby. Due to  Defendant’s 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  numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   29.  Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a  computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a  proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited  the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   30.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in November,  2020, in an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered  multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a  -11-  sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and  made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and  services of the Website by being unable to purchase professional kitchen knives, knife sets,  knife accessories, and other products available online for purchase, and to ascertain  information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy  policies.   31.  While attempting to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple  accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired persons that include, but are not limited  to, the following:  a.  Lack of Alternative Text (“alt-text”), or a text equivalent. Alt-text is  an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility  requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak  the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts. Alt-text  does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the keyboard  moves over the picture. The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from  accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics. As a result, Defendant’s visually- impaired customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse, or make any  purchases;  b.  Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or purpose  of the link to not be presented to the user. They can introduce confusion for keyboard and  screen-reader users;  -12-  c.  Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address  which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users;  and  d.  Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an image  within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then  has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information  contained in PDFs.   32.  Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements. This is  a problem for the visually-impaired because the screen reader fails to distinguish  one  page from another. In order to fix this problem, Defendant must change the title  elements for each page.    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 his  original search.  Defendant Must Remove Barriers To Its Website   34.  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 goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The  -13-  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 accessing the Website.    35.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s Website and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals because: Plaintiff  was unable to use and enjoy the Website in the same manner as sighted individuals do,  preventing Plaintiff from using the Website to purchase items and to view the items.   36.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   37.  Through his 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 persons.   38.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 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 not sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;  and,  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.  -14-   39.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   40.  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).   41.  Because Defendant’s Website is not and has never been fully accessible,  and because, upon information and belief, Defendant does not have, and has never had,  adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its Website to become  and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and seek a permanent  injunction requiring Defendant to:  a) Retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff (“Web Accessibility  Consultant”) who shall assist in improving the accessibility of its Website,  including all third-party content and plug-ins, so the goods and services on the  Website may be equally accessed and enjoyed by visually-impaired persons;  b) Work with the Web Accessibility Consultant to ensure all employees involved  in Website and content development be given web accessibility training on a  biennial basis, including onsite training to create accessible content at the design  and development stages;  c) Work with the Web Accessibility Consultant to perform an automated  accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate whether Defendant’s Website may  be equally accessed and enjoyed by visually-impaired persons on an ongoing basis;  d) Work with the Web Accessibility Consultant to perform end-user  accessibility/usability testing on at least a quarterly basis with said testing to be  performed by humans who are blind or have low vision, or who have training and  experience in the manner in which persons who are blind use a screen reader to  -15-  navigate, browse, and conduct business on websites, in addition to the testing, if  applicable, that is performed using semi-automated tools;  e) Incorporate all of the Web Accessibility Consultant’s recommendations within  sixty (60) days of receiving the recommendations;  f) Work with the Web Accessibility Consultant to create a Web Accessibility Policy  that will be posted on its Website, along with an e-mail address, instant messenger,  and toll-free phone number to report accessibility-related problems;  g) Directly link from the footer on each page of its Website, a statement that  indicates that Defendant is making efforts to maintain and increase the accessibility  of its Website to ensure that visually-impaired persons have full and equal  enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and  accommodations of the Defendant’s Website;  h) Accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means of submitting  accessibility questions and problems, including an accessible form to submit  feedback or an email address to contact representatives knowledgeable about the  Web Accessibility Policy;  i) Provide a notice, prominently and directly linked from the footer on each page of  its Website, soliciting feedback from visitors to the Website on how the  accessibility of the Website can be improved. The link shall provide a method to  provide feedback, including an accessible form to submit feedback or an email  address to contact representatives knowledgeable about the Web Accessibility  Policy;  j) Provide a copy of the Web Accessibility Policy to all web content personnel,  contractors responsible for web content, and Client Service Operations call center  agents (“CSO Personnel”) for the Website;  k) Train no fewer than three of its CSO Personnel to automatically escalate calls  from users with disabilities who encounter difficulties using the Website.  Defendant shall have trained no fewer than 3 of its CSO personnel to timely assist  such users with disabilities within CSO published hours of operation. Defendant  shall establish procedures for promptly directing requests for assistance to such  personnel including notifying the public that customer assistance is available to  users with disabilities and describing the process to obtain that assistance;  l) Modify existing bug fix policies, practices, and procedures to include the  elimination of bugs that cause the Website to be inaccessible to users of screen  reader technology; and  m) Plaintiff, his counsel, and their experts monitor the Website for up to two years  after the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant validates the Website are free of  -16-  accessibility errors/violations to ensure Defendant has adopted and implemented  adequate accessibility policies. To this end, Plaintiff, through his counsel and their  experts, shall be entitled to consult with the Web Accessibility Consultant at their  discretion, and to review any written material, including but not limited to any  recommendations the Website Accessibility Consultant provides Defendant.   42.  Web-based technologies have features and content that are modified on a  daily, and in some instances an hourly, basis, and a one time “fix” to an inaccessible  website will not cause the website to remain accessible without a corresponding change in  corporate policies related to those web-based technologies. To evaluate whether an  inaccessible website has been rendered accessible, and whether corporate policies related  to web-based technologies have been changed in a meaningful manner that will cause the  website to remain accessible, the website must be reviewed on a periodic basis using both  automated accessibility screening tools and end user testing by visually-impaired persons.   43.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired persons could independently shop for and otherwise research the  Defendant’s products via the Website.   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 sums in  developing and maintaining their Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making their Website  equally accessible to visually-impaired consumers.   -17-   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 himself 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 offered by  Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.   48.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York State Sub-Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally  blind individuals in the State 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 by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.    49.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York City Sub-Class 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 by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.    50.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class and Sub- Classes, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   -18-  b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to visually- impaired persons, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to visually- impaired persons, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   51.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class and Sub-Classes. The Class, and  Sub-Classes, similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind  persons, and claim that Defendant has violated the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing  to update or remove access barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to  the Class and/or the Sub-Classes.   52.  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, including ADA 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.   53.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions are common to Class Members predominate over  -19-  questions affecting only individual Class Members, and because a class action is superior  to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of their litigation.   54.  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 visually-impaired persons throughout the  United States.  55.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   56.  Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides:  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).   57.  Defendant’s online retail store is a place of public accommodation within  the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website is a  service, privilege, or advantage of Defendant’s online retail store   58.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of  an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   59.  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  -20-  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).   60.  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, 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).   61.  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.   62.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  -21-  63.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   64.  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.”   65.  Defendant’s Website operates in the State of New York and constitutes an  online sales establishment and a place of public accommodation within the definition of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendant’s online retail establishment.    66.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns  and/or operates its Website in the State of New York. Defendant is a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   67.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  therewith to be completely inaccessible to the blind. Their inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes  available to the non-disabled public.   68.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(i), unlawful discriminatory practice  includes, among other things, “a refusal to make reasonable modifications in policies,  -22-  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".   69.  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.”   70.  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 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  its Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business  nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   71.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, 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  -23-  b.  constructed and maintained a website that is not sufficiently  intuitive and/or obvious that it 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.   72.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   73.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate,  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class 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 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 Sub-Class Members will continue to  suffer irreparable harm.   74.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   75.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines under 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.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures and rights set  forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  -24-  78.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 an online sales establishment and a place of public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website  is a service that is integrated with its online sales establishment.   81.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and/or operates its  Website in the City of New York, 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 therewith to be completely inaccessible to the blind. The inaccessibility  denies blind consumers full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   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.]  -25-  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 not sufficiently  intuitive and/or obvious that it 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 Sub-Class on the  basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 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 in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the Sub-Class  will continue to suffer irreparable harm.  -26-   87.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his 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 himself and the Class and New York State and 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 goods and  services of its Website, 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., 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.  -27-  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  