24.  Defendant is a Park and Entertainment Resort that owns and operates www.hersheypa.com  (its “Website”), offering features which should allow all consumers to access its goods and  services throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania.   25.  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 NVDA  screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet.   28.  These barriers, and others, deny Plaintiff full and equal access to all of the services the  Website offers, and now deter him from attempting to use the Website and/or visit  HERSHEY PARK. Still, Plaintiff would like to, and intends to, attempt to access  HERSHEY PARK’s Website in the future to research the services the Website offers, or  to test the Website for compliance with the ADA.   30.  If the Website were accessible, i.e. if HERSHEY PARK removed the access barriers  described above, Plaintiff could independently research the Website’s offerings, including  booking a stay at the HERSHEY PARK Resort.   31.  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 people.   32.  Though HERSHEY PARK may have centralized policies regarding the maintenance and  operation of its Website, upon and information and belief, HERSHEY PARK has never  had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make its Website fully accessible to,  and independently usable by, individuals with vision related disabilities. As a result, the  complained of access barriers are permanent in nature and likely to persist.   33.  The law requires that HERSHEY PARK reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s disabilities  by removing these existing access barriers. Removal of the barriers identified above is  readily achievable and may be carried out without much difficulty or expense.    34.  Plaintiff’s above request for injunctive relief is consistent with the work performed by the  United States Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, and U.S. Architectural  and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the “Access Board”), all of whom have  relied upon or mandated that the public-facing pages of website complies with an  international compliance standard known as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version   35.  Plaintiff and the Class have been, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to be,  injured by HERSHEY PARK’s failure to provide its online content and services in a  manner that is compatible with screen reader technology.   36.  HERSHEY PARK has long known that screen reader technology is necessary for  individuals with visual disabilities to access its online content and services, and that it is  legally responsible for providing the same in a manner that is compatible with these  auxiliary aids.    37.  Indeed, the Disability Rights Section of the DOJ reaffirmed in a 2015 Statement of Interest  before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it has been a  “longstanding position” of the Department of Justice “that the ADA applies to website of  public accommodations.” See National Association of the Deaf v. Massachusetts Institute  of Technology, No. 3:15-cv-300024-MGM, DOJ Statement of Interest in Opp. To Motion  to Dismiss or Stay, Doc. 34, p. 4 (D. Mass. Jun. 25, 2015) (“MIT Statement of Interest”);  see also National Association of the Deaf. v. Harvard University, No. 3:15-cv-30023- MGM, DOJ Statement of Interest of the United States of America, Doc. 33, p.4 (D. Mass.  Jun. 25, 2015) (“Harvard Statement of Interest”).   38.  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).   40.  While DOJ has rulemaking authority and can bring enforcement actions in court, Congress  has not authorized it to provide an adjudicative administrative process to provide Plaintiff  with relief.    41.  Plaintiff alleges violations of existing and longstanding statutory and regulatory  requirements to provide auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective  communication, and courts routinely decide these types of matters.    42.  Resolution of Plaintiff’s claims does not require the Court to unravel intricate, technical  facts, but rather involves consideration of facts within the conventional competence of the  courts, e.g. (a) whether HERSHEY PARK offers content and services on its Website, and  (b) whether Plaintiff can access the content and services.   43.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will continue to  be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  44.  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, during the relevant statutory period.   46.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, like Plaintiff, are visually impaired or  otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has violated the ADA by failing to remove  access barriers on its Website so as to be independently accessible to the Class.   47.  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, and because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the  Class Members.   48.  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 the Class as a whole.   49.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because fact  and legal questions common to Class Members 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.   50.  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 throughout the United States.  51.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   53.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodations within the definition of Title III of the  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service that is offered to the general public,  and as such, must be equally accessible to all potential consumers.   54.  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 products,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   55.  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 benefit from the products,  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).   56.  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).   58.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  59.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   60.  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 products, services  and facilities of its Website, which Defendant owns, operations 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. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   61.  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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  