2.1 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons   to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1  guidelines; and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on Defendant’s   Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   21.  Defendant is a shoe and accessories retailer that owns and operates  www.shoemall.com (its “Website”), offering features which should allow all  consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the  delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.   22.  Defendant’s Website offers 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, inquire about pricing, 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 on separate occasions using a screen-reader.   24.  On multiple occasions, the last occurring in January of 2020, Plaintiff visited  Defendant’s website, www.shoemall.com, to make a purchase. Despite her efforts,  however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted  individual due to the website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations,  which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to determine what specific  products were offered for sale.   26.  Many features on the Website also fail to Add a 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 and similarly situated visually impaired users of Defendant’s  Website are 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 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.    28.  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 her original search.   30.  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.   31.  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 facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its  Website. The 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 equal access to the Website.     32.  If the Website were equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate  the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   33.  Through her 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.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   36.  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).   38.  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.    39.  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.    40.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to 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.    43.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the 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.   45.  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. 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.   46.  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.   47.  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.  48.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   50.  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.   51.  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).   52.  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).   53.  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).   55.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  56.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   57.  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.”   58.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   60.  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 with such Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, products,  and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   61.  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).   62.  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.   64.  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 products, 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 class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   65.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   66.  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.   67.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   68.  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.  69.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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.   71.  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  