21.  Defendant is a cosmetic and skincare products company that owns and operates the  website, www.jouercosmetics.com (its “Website”), offering features which should  allow all consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant ensures the  delivery of throughout the United States, including New York State.   22.  Defendant’s Website offers its products and services for online sale and general  delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to  browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions and prices, and avail  consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.   23.  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. Plaintiff has visited the  Website using a screen-reader.   25.  For example, many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible  code embedded beneath a graphical image. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to  differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the Website to  adequately describe its content.   26.  Many features on the Website also fail to contain a proper label element or title  attribute for each field. This is a problem for the visually impaired because the  screen reader fails to communicate the purpose of the page element. It also leads to  the user not being able to understand what he or she is expected to insert into the  subject field. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits  of the Website equally to sighted users.   27.  Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements. This was a  problem for Plaintiff because in certain instances the screen reader failed to  distinguish one page from another. In order to fix this problem, Defendant must  change the title elements for each page.    30.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy  Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do.    31.  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 to the  general public. 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 Website, and the numerous goods and services  and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   33.  If the Website were equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate  the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   34.  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.   35.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 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 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.   36.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   38.  Upon information and belief, because JOUER COSMETICS, LLC’s Website has  never been accessible and because JOUER COSMETICS, LLC does not have, and  has never had, an adequate corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause  its Website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. §  12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent injunction requiring:  a. that JOUER COSMETICS, LLC retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff (“Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant”) who shall assist it in improving  the accessibility of its Website so the goods and services on them may be  equally accessed and enjoyed by individuals with vision related disabilities;  b. that JOUER COSMETICS, LLC work with the Mutually Agreed Upon  Consultant to ensure that all employees involved in website development and  content development be given web accessibility training on a periodic basis,  including onsite training to create accessible content at the design and  development stages;   c. that JOUER COSMETICS, LLC work with the Mutually Agreed Upon  Consultant to perform an automated accessibility audit on a periodic basis to  evaluate whether its Website may be equally accessed and enjoyed by  individuals with vision related disabilities on an ongoing basis;    d. that JOUER COSMETICS, LLC work with the Mutually Agreed Upon  Consultant to perform end-user accessibility/usability testing on a periodic  basis with said testing to be performed by individuals with various disabilities  to evaluate whether its Website may be equally accessed and enjoyed by  individuals with vision related disabilities on an ongoing basis;   e. that JOUER COSMETICS, LLC work with the Mutually Agreed Upon  Consultant to create an accessibility policy that will be posted on its Website,  along with an e-mail address and tollfree phone number to report accessibility- related problems; and   f. that Plaintiff, their counsel and its experts monitor Defendant’s Website for up  to two years after the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant validates it is free of  accessibility errors/violations to ensure it has adopted and implemented  adequate accessibility policies.   40.  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.    41.  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 customers.    42.  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 certify a New  York City subclass 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, during the relevant statutory period.    45.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under   the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public   accommodation” under the NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment   of  its  products,  services,  facilities,  privileges,  advantages,  or  accommodations to people with visual disabilities, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment   of  its  products,  services,  facilities,  privileges,  advantages,  or  accommodations to people with visual disabilities, violating the NYCHRL.   46.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the Plaintiff, are  severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has  violated the ADA or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on  its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   48.  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.   49.  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.  50.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   51.  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).   53.  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).   54.  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).   55.  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).   57.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  58.  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.   59.  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.”   60.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   61.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website, making  it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   63.  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.]  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).   64.  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 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.   65.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   67.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   68.  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.   69.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   70.  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.  71.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York City Sub-Classes  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.   73.  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.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  