14.  8 Spruce owns and manages New York by Gehry, an apartment building  located at 8 Spruce Street, New York, New York. It rents within this building, studio  apartments, and apartments with one or more bedrooms.   15.  8 Spruce’s Website is heavily integrated with its building, serving as a  gateway to it. Through the Website, 8 Spruce’s tenants and prospective tenants are, inter  alia, able to: learn information about the building, including its location, apartment  features and building amenities; view images and floorplans of the apartments; learn  about the neighborhood; learn about what apartments are available; read press reviews  about the building, interact with the company via social media links contained on the  Website, contact the company via an online form and apply for an apartment.    17.  Plaintiff Fischler 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.   19.  Plaintiff Fischler was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services 8 Spruce offers to the public on its Website because he encountered multiple  accessibility barriers that visually-impaired people often encounter with non-compliant  websites:  a.  Images are not properly tagged and therefore are not detected by  screen readers; no alt-text is provided for these images.  b.  Links use general text like “Click Here” with no surrounding text  explaining the link’s purpose.  c.  Links use general text like “Read More” without explaining the  links purpose.   d.  Several links on a page share the same link text but go to a  different destination.  e.  Webpages have markup errors.  8 Spruce Must Remove Barriers to Its Website    21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Fischler could  independently navigate it, learn about available apartments, learn about the  neighborhood, and contact the building as sighted users can.   22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Fischler has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    23.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff Fischler and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the  Website, Plaintiff Fischler alleges that 8 Spruce 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 Fischler;  b.  Failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff  Fischler; 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 Fischler, as a member of a protected class.   24.  8 Spruce therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   26.  Because its Website has never been equally accessible, and because 8  Spruce lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to  become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction under 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring 8 Spruce to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Fischler to assist 8 Spruce to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for its Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.1 compliant;  b.  Training 8 Spruce employees and agents who develop the Website  on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that 8 Spruce’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines; and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on 8  Spruce’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   27.  Although 8 Spruce may currently have centralized policies on maintaining  and operating its Website, 8 Spruce 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.   29.  8 Spruce 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.  8 Spruce has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  31.  Plaintiff Fischler 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 8 Spruce’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in 8 Spruce’s apartment building, during the  relevant statutory period (“Class Members”).   32.  Plaintiff Fischler seeks to certify a State of New York subclass 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in 8 Spruce’s apartment building, during the  relevant statutory period (“New York Subclass Members”).   34.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members,  New York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members:  a.  Whether 8 Spruce’s apartment building is a place of “public  accommodation”;  b.  Whether the Website is a “public accommodation” or a service or  good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA;   c.  Whether the Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL;   d.  Whether the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating Title III of the ADA; and  e.  Whether the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   35.  Plaintiff Fischler’s claims are typical of the Class Members, New York  Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members: they are all severely visually  impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that 8 Spruce has violated Title III of the ADA,  NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its Website so it  can be independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   37.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class and Subclass Members  predominate over questions affecting only individuals, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   38.  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 people with visual disabilities  throughout the United States.   39.   Plaintiff Fischler, 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).   42.  Under 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).   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 Fischler requests the relief as set forth below.  47.  Plaintiff Fischler, 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.  8 Spruce’s State of New York apartment building constitutes a sales  establishment and public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). 8 Spruce’s  Website is a service, privilege or advantage of 8 Spruce. 8 Spruce’s Website is a service  that is by and integrated with these apartment building.   49.  8 Spruce is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its New  York apartment building and the Website. 8 Spruce is a “person” within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   51.  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.   52.  8 Spruce’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in that 8  Spruce has:  a.  Constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to 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.   54.  As 8 Spruce’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Fischler seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination, compensatory damages, civil penalties and  fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense, and reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs.  55.  Plaintiff Fischler, 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.   56.  8 Spruce’s New York City building is a sales establishment and public  accommodation under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is  a service that is integrated with that establishment.   57.  8 Spruce is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  New  York City apartment building and its Website, making it a person within the meaning of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   59.  8 Spruce’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  Subclass because of a disability, violating the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a,) in that it 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.   60.  As such, 8 Spruce discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Fischler 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 establishments  under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins 8  Spruce from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York  City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   61.  As 8 Spruce’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Fischler seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination, compensatory damages, civil penalties and  fines for each offense, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§  8-120(8), 8-126(a).  63.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Fischler contends, and is informed and believes that 8 Spruce 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 apartment building,  which 8 Spruce 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.   64.  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.  8 Spruce, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   DECLARATORY RELIEF   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  