(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)   (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)   20. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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  Defendant and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered  by Defendant during the relevant statutory period.”    21. 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 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.”   22. 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. 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.   23. 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 Defendant and Defendant Stores.  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 access the Website.    25. 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, and/or the laws of New York 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.   26. 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. 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. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  30. The Website is a service and benefit offered by Defendant throughout the United  States, including New York State.    31. The Website is an online dating website. The Website allows the user to create a  profile; browse potential dates; interact with other users; and perform a variety of other functions.   32. Among the features offered by Defendant are the following:  (a)  a Discover tab, which allows users to browse profiles and find potential  matches;  (b)  a Matches tab, which allows users to view their daily matches;  (c)  an Interests tab, which allows users to see who has viewed their profile;  (d)  information about the Website’s local events;   (e)  dating articles, success stories, and dating tips;  (f)  information about the Website’s company history and privacy policy; and  (g)  information about subscribing to the Website.   34. The Website denies the blind access to services and information made available  through the Website by preventing them from freely navigating the Website.   35. 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.   36. 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.   38. The Website 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, the lack of adequate  prompting and labeling; lack of navigation links; the denial of keyboard access; and the  requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   39. 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.  There are many important pictures on Defendant 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.) On the Website, the graphics and images simply do not contain text equivalents,  rendering other users’ profiles entirely unreadable by screen reader software. As a result, Plaintiff  and blind Defendant customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse the site,  investigate the Website’s navigation bar and/or find matches.   41. The Website also lacks accessible forms. Editable boxes allow users to specify the  gender, age range, and search radius of potential matches. On the Website, blind customers are  unable to fill in their desired specifications because the screen reader does not indicate the function  of the boxes. For example, instead of reading “seeking [men] or [women]”, the box simply reads,  “edit, blank”. As a result, blind customers are denied access to appropriate date search. Therefore,  blind customers are unsuccessful in searching and browsing through profiles on the Website.    42. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on the Website makes attempting to navigate  through the Website even more time consuming and confusing for Plaintiff and blind consumers.   43. The Website requires the use of a mouse to create a profile and browse potential  matches. 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,  the Website’s inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to browse profiles, denies  Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently navigate the Website.   44. Due to the Website’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in turn spend  time and energy in online dating. If the Website was accessible, a blind person could independently  enjoy dating services via the Internet as sighted individuals can and do.   46. 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 Defendant.   47. Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to enjoy the services of the Website, most  recently in September 2017, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access  barriers on the Website, causing it to be inaccessible and not independently usable by, blind and  visually impaired individuals.   49. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that Defendant’s  website, Defendant contains access barriers causing the website to be inaccessible, and not  independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   50. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment  of, the benefits and services of Defendant.   51. The Website 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.   52. The Website utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   55. The Website is a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights  Law § 40-c(2). The Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant.   56. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because they own and operate the  Website.   57. 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.   58. 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. 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.”   61. 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:  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.   62. 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 the Website who are blind have  been denied full and equal access to The Website, 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.    63. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    65. 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.   66. 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.   67. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     68. 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.  69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though  fully set forth herein.   70. 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. Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because they own and operate  the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   73. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to the Website, causing Defendant and the services integrated with Defendant  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.    74. 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.”   75. 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. 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.   78. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   79. 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 Defendant and Defendant Stores 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 subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   80. The actions of Defendant 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.   82. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   83. 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.   84. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 41.    85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though  fully set forth herein.   86. 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 …”     87. 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. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own and operate  the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   90. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing Defendant and the services integrated with  the Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services that Defendant makes available to the  non-disabled public.    91. 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:  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.   92. 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. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   95. 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.    96. 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.  97. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   98. 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.”   