25.  Defendant operates multiple stores throughout the United States, including its store located  at 1408 Larimer St. #102 Denver, CO 80202.   26.  Defendant offers its Website in connection with its physical locations. The goods and  services offered by Defendant through its Website include but are not limited to the  following: store locations and hours, contact information, the ability to make an online  purchase, and related goods and services available both online and in stores.   27.  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 and integrated with Defendant’s  stores. 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 stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public  through its Website.   28.  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.   30.  Due to Defendant’s failure to build its Website in a manner that is compatible with screen  reader programs, Plaintiff is and was unable to understand, and thus is denied the benefit  of, much of the content and services he wishes to access or use. For example:  a. 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.  b. 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.  c. The Website also contains 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.   33.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from visiting  Defendant’s physical locations and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals because:  Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of Defendant’s stores on its  Website and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations  to take advantage of the goods and services that it provides to the public.   34.  If the Website were equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate the  Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.  In fact, Plaintiff  intends to return to the Website when it is equally accessible for visually-impaired  consumers in order to complete his intended transaction, as it is more convenient for  Plaintiff to access the Website to make a purchase than to travel to a physical location to  make the same purchase.  However, as long as the Access Barriers continue to exist on the  Website, Plaintiff is prevented from making such a purchase.   35.  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  Defendant physical stores. Still, Plaintiff would like to, and intends to, attempt to access  Defendant’s Website in the future to research the services the Website offers, or to test the  Website for compliance with the ADA.   37.  If the Website were accessible, i.e. if Defendant removed the access barriers described  above, Plaintiff could independently research the Website’s offerings, including store  locations and hours and promotions available at the its physical locations.   38.  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.   39.  Though Defendant may have centralized policies regarding the maintenance and operation  of its Website, upon and information and belief, Defendant 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.   40.  The law requires that Defendant 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.    41.  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   42.  Plaintiff and the Class have been, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to be,  injured by Defendant’s failure to provide its online content and services in a manner that  is compatible with screen reader technology.   43.  Defendant 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.    44.  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”).   45.  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).   47.  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.    48.  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.    49.  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 Defendant offers content and services on its Website, and (b)  whether Plaintiff can access the content and services.   50.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually impaired consumers will continue to  be unable to independently use the Website, thereby violating their rights.  51.  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.   53.  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 it can be independently accessible to the Class.   54.  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.   55.  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.   56.  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.   57.  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.  58.   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.  Defendant’s physical locations are a public accommodation 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.   61.  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).   62.  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).   63.  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).   65.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  66.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   67.  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.   68.  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.  