28.  Plaintiff, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeks class action  certification pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of all deaf  and hard of hearing individuals in the United States who have been denied equal access to goods  and services of the Defendant’s Website.     29.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to certify   a New York State subclass under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of all   deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the State of New York who have been denied equal access   to goods and services of the Defendant’s Website.     30.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to certify   a New York City subclass under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of all   deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the City of New York who have been denied equal access   to goods and services of the Defendant’s Website.     31.  The Class is so numerous, being composed of millions of deaf and hard of hearing   individuals, that joinder of all members is impracticable.  Additionally, there are questions of law   and/or fact common to the Class and the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the Class claims.     32.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class including:    a. Whether the Website is a "public accommodations" under the ADA and   New York laws;  b. Whether there was a violation under the ADA due to the barriers that exist  on the Defendant’s Website and whether the Plaintiff and the Class  were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations; and  c. Whether there was a violation under New York law due to the barriers that exist   on the Defendant’s Website and whether the Plaintiff and the Class  were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations.   33.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class as they both claim that the   Defendant violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to have its Website   accessible.       34.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class members   as the Plaintiff and the Class are both deaf or hard of hearing individuals having the same claims.     35.  Class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is proper because Defendant has acted   or refused to act on grounds applicable to the Class as a whole, making declaratory and injunctive   relief appropriate.     36.  Questions of law or fact which affected Class members predominate questions which   affected individual Class members and a class action will fairly and efficiently determine this   litigation.         37.  Counsel for the Plaintiff is experienced representing both Plaintiffs and Defendant in class   actions.  As such the Class will be properly represented.     38.  Judicial economy requires this action be certified as a class action as it will prevent a   voluminous amount of individual lawsuits filed by deaf or hard of hearing individuals throughout   the United States.       39.      Defendant owns, operates, controls and maintains the Website, which provides information   and video content on what PathFactory does and what kind of services it offers, all of which is  content on the Website that seeks to promote and sell its marketing services.  The Defendant  also owns and leases numerous physical places of public accommodations which operate in  conjunction with its Website such as corporate sales offices, virtual event studios, blog creations  production facilities, along with marketing and advertising locations.     40.  The Website can be viewed by individuals located in New York State in addition to  individuals from all states throughout the United States and can be reached from computers, tablets   and cellphones which can access the internet.     41.  In order for the deaf and hard of hearing to access video content, a website, including the   Defendant’s Website, must have the ability to turn voice content into readable content.  Closed   captioning is the process by which this is done.  Without the use of closed captioning, a deaf or   hard of hearing individual would have to have someone present while they are watching a video   to interpret and explain the audio content for them.     42.  Various recommendations and guidelines exist in order to make websites, including the  Defendant’s Website, compliant with the ADA.  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines  (“WCAG”) is one of those guidelines.  WCAG 2.1 Section 1.2.2 states that “Captions are provided  for all prerecorded audio content in synchronized media, except when the media is a media  alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such”.   Additionally, Section 508, an amendment to  the United States Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requires all electronic and information  technology be accessible to individuals with disabilities and requires closed captioning for video  content.     43.  The Website’s numerous videos, which cannot be accessed by deaf and hard of hearing  individuals, are in violation of the ADA and New York laws.  Videos include most of the Websites  videos in addition to the videos the Plaintiff tried to access mentioned herein.     44.  The Plaintiff in this matter was on the Defendant’s Website in order to watch videos on the   day of August 1, 2020 in addition to subsequent days.  The Plaintiff attempted to watch various  videos to learn about what PathFactory does and what kind of services it offers, all of which is  content on the Website which promote it sales and marketing efforts on www.pathfactory.com  including “How PathFactory’s Content Insight & Activation Platform helps B2B marketers”, but  was unable to do so due to their lack of closed captioning.  Plaintiff and Class members cannot  watch videos on the Website and have been prevented from accessing the Website although they  would like to and intend to visit the Website in the future and enjoy video content as non-deaf  individuals can and do.  There are no closed captioning on the videos.  The Defendant’s access  barriers prevent the Plaintiff from enjoying the goods, services and benefits offered by the Website  in conjunction with their physical locations and as such denied the Plaintiff equal access.       45.  This lack of closed captioning by the Defendant on its Website prevents not only the   Plaintiff but also the deaf and hard of hearing located in New York State and nationally from   having equal access as non-deaf and non-hard of hearing individuals have, preventing deaf and   hard of hearing individuals from enjoying the goods, services and benefits offered by the Website.    46.  Defendant has intentionally failed and refused to remove the Website’s barriers of access  by failing to use closed captioning thereby denying equal access to the Plaintiff and the Class and  discriminates against the Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the ADA and New York laws.    47.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” to “46”   as if fully set forth herein.     48.  The Plaintiff is deaf and requires closed captioning to have full and equal access to   audio and audiovisual content and has an impairment that substantially limits one or more of   his major life activities and is therefore an individual with a disability as defined under the   63.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” to “62”   as if fully set forth herein.   64.  At all times relevant to this action, the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”),    Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law §§ 290 et. seq. covers the actions of the Defendant.     65.  Defendant qualifies as a person within the meaning of Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive   Law § 292(1).      66.  The Plaintiff, at all times relevant to this action, has a substantial impairment to a major   life activity of hearing and is an individual with a disability under Article 15 of the N.Y.   Executive Law § 292(21).  The Defendant, at all relevant times to this action, owns and   operates a place of accommodation, the Website, within the meaning of Article 15 of the N.Y.   Executive Law § 292(9) along with its physical locations which include corporate sales offices,  virtual event studios, blog creations production facilities, along with marketing and advertising  locations.     67.  Pursuant to Article 15 N.Y. Executive Law § 296(2)(a) “it shall be an unlawful   discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,   superintendent,  agent or employee of any place of public accommodation ... because of the ...   disability of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person   any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof."   68.  Discrimination includes the refusal to adopt and implement reasonable modifications   in policies, practices or procedures when they are necessary to afford, facilities, privileges,   advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. Article 15 of the N.Y.   Executive Law§ 296(2)(a), § 296(2)(c)(i).   69.  Defendant’s actions violate Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) by discriminating   against the Plaintiff and the Class, including the Subclass by (i) owning and operating the Website   that is inaccessible to deaf and hard of hearing persons; and (ii) by not removing access barriers to   its Website in order to make its videos accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing when such   modifications are necessary to afford facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to   individuals with disabilities.  This inaccessibility denies the deaf and hard-of-hearing full and equal   access to the facilities, goods and services that the Defendant makes available to individuals who   are not deaf or hard of hearing. Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(c).     70.  The Defendant’s discriminatory practice also include "a refusal to take such steps as may   be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because   of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless such person can demonstrate that taking such   steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation   being offered or would result in an undue burden.” Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law §   296(2)(c)(ii).    71.  Well established guidelines exist for making a website accessible to the deaf and hard of   hearing and are easily obtainable.  The guidelines have been used and followed by government   and businesses in making their websites accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing, including but   not limited to the use of closed captioning.  Incorporating this component by Defendant in its   Website would not fundamentally alter the Defendant’s Website or business and would not result   in an undue burden.       72.  Defendant has intentionally and willfully discriminated against the Plaintiff, the   Class and Subclass in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Article 15 of the   N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) and this discrimination continues to date.     73.  Absent relief, Defendant’s discrimination will continue against the Plaintiff, the Class and   Subclass causing irreparable harm.     74.  Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages, civil penalties and fines for each   and every discriminatory act in addition to reasonable attorney fees and the costs and   disbursements of this action.  Article 15 of the N.Y. Exe. Law §§ 297(9), 297(4)(c) et seq.  75.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” to “74”   as if fully set forth herein.     76.  Plaintiff served notice of this lawsuit upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.   Civil Rights Law § 41.     77.  Persons within N.Y.S. are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages,   facilities and privileges of places of public accommodations, resort or amusement, subject only   to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons.  No   persons, being the owner of a place of public accommodation, shall directly or indirectly   refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations,   advantages, facilities   and privileges thereof.  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40.     78.  No person because of disability, as defined in § 292 (21) of the Executive Law, shall be   subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by person or by any firm, corporation or   institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law (“CVR”) § 40-c.   79.  § 292 of Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law deems a disability a physical, mental   or medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological   conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function.  As such the Plaintiff is   disabled under the N.Y. Civil Rights Law.     80.  Defendant discriminates against the Plaintiff and Subclass under CVR § 40 as  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodation that does not provide full and equal  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to all persons and discriminates against  the deaf and hard of hearing due to its lack of closed captioning for the death and hard of  hearing.     81.  Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to remove the barriers on their Website  discriminating against the Plaintiff and Sub-Class preventing access in violation of CVR §40.     82.  Defendant has failed to take any steps to halt and corrects their discriminatory conduct  and discriminates against and will continue to discriminates against the Plaintiff and the Sub- Class members.     83.  Under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 a corporation which violates any of the provisions of  §§ 40, 40-a, 40-b or 42 shall be liable for a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more  than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person aggrieved thereby… in any court of  competent jurisdiction in the county in which the plaintiff or defendant shall reside.     84.  Plaintiff hereby demands compensatory damages of five hundred dollars for the  Defendant’s acts of discrimination including civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Law  § 40 et seq.  85.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” to  “84” as if  fully set forth herein.   86.  At all times, the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), New York City   Administrative Code §§ 8-101 et. seq. applied to the conduct of the Defendant as the   Defendant owns and operates the Website and are persons under the law.     87.  At all times concerning this action the Plaintiff has had a substantial impairment to  amajor life activity of hearing and is an individual with a disability under N.Y.C.      Administrative Code § 8-102(16).     88.  At all times concerning this action the Defendant’s Website is a place of public  accommodation as defined in N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9).      89.   “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 the actual or perceived ……. disability …. of any person   to withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations required to make   reasonable accommodations to a disabled individual and may not “refuse, withhold from or   deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof”   N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(4)(a).     90.  The willful and intentional non-removal of the Website’s barriers of access for the   Plaintiff, the Class and the Subclass by the Defendant discriminates against the deaf and hard of   hearing by denying them full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant  makes available to the non-deaf and hard of hearing individuals.      91.  It is discriminatory for the Defendant “not to provide a 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. Administrative   Code § 8-107(15)(a).   92.  Defendant’s actions will continue to prevent the Plaintiff, the Class and Subclass from   accessing the Website as the remaining public can and the Plaintiff requests injunctive relief.     93.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages for the injuries and loss sustained as a   result of the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct in addition to punitive damages and civil penalties   and fines for each offense, attorney fees, costs and disbursements of this action.  N.Y.C.   Administrative Code § 8-120(8), § 8-126(a) and § 8-502(a).  94.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” to “93”   as if fully set forth herein.     95.  The Plaintiff claims that the Website contains barriers denying deaf and hard-of-hearing   individuals full and equal access to the goods and services of the Website.     96.  Defendant’s Website fails to comply with applicable laws and the Defendant discriminates  against the Plaintiff and Sub-Class under 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. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq.    97.  The Defendant denies these claims.     98.  The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment such that the parties understand and know their   respective rights and obligations.    CLASS AND SUB-CLASS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF   THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of New York City Human Rights Law   THE PLAINTIFF, THE CLASS AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act   THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of New York State Human Rights Law   THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law  