20.  NYX’s Website is heavily integrated with its physical stores, serving as a  gateway to those brick and mortar locations. Through the Website, NYX customers are,  inter alia, able to: find information about the stores’ locations and hours of operation;  purchase makeup and makeup accessories (e.g., lipstick, lipgloss, bronzer, blush,  eyeliner, brushes) and learn about those products (e.g., learn “what’s trending,” best  sellers, “fan faves”); purchase a gift card; learn about and access special offers and sales  (e.g., discounts, special mark downs); learn style tips; and learn about the company’s  refund policies.   21.  It is, upon information and belief, NYX’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Young and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website, thereby  denying the goods and services that are offered and integrated with NYX’s stores. Due to  NYX’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website, Plaintiff Young and  visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to NYX’s  stores and the numerous goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through the  Website.    22.  Plaintiff Young cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen- reading software. He is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to  access the Internet. He has visited the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS  screen-reader.    25.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Young, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use  or enjoy the facilities, goods, and services NYX offer to the public on its Website. The  Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Young encountered have caused a denial of his  full and equal access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the  Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from visiting NYX’s physical  stores and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.   26.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Young could  independently navigate it and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   27.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Young has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.   29.  NYX therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that  have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged  herein.   30.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff seeks:  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).   32.  Although NYX may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website, NYX 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.   33.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Young and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   34.  NYX has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   36.  Plaintiff Young 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 NYX’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment  of goods and services offered in NYX’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory  period (“Class Members”).   37.  Plaintiff Young seeks to certify a State of New York subclass under Fed.  R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind individuals in the State of New York who  have attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in NYX’s physical locations, during the relevant  statutory period (“New York Subclass Members”).   38.  Plaintiff Young 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in NYX’s physical locations, during the relevant  statutory period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   40.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members, New York Subclass  Members and New York City Subclass Members: they are all severely visually impaired  or otherwise blind, and claim that NYX has violated Title III of the ADA, NYSHRL or  NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its Website so it can be  independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   41.  Plaintiff Young will fairly and adequately represent and protect the Class  and Subclasses’ interests because he has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because he has no  interests antagonistic to the Class or Subclasses. Class certification of the claims is  appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because NYX has acted or refused to act on  grounds generally applicable to the Class and Subclasses, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   43.  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.  44.   Plaintiff Young, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   45.  Title III of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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).   46.  NYX’s stores are public accommodations within the definition of Title III  of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of  NYX’s stores. The Website is a service that is integrated with these locations.   47.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   49.  Under 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).   50.  These acts alleged herein violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations  promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff Young, who is a member of a protected class of  persons under Title III of the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the  major life activity of sight within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A).  Furthermore, he has been denied full and equal access to the Website, has not been  provided services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has been  provided services that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons.    51.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Young requests the relief as set forth below.  53.  N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) provides that it is “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.”   54.  NYX’s physical locations are in the State of New York and throughout the  United States and constitute sales establishments and public accommodations within the  definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). NYX’s Website is a service, privilege or  advantage of NYX. NYX’s Website is a service that is by and integrated with these  physical locations.   55.  NYX is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its physical  locations and the Website. NYX is a “person” within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law §  292(1).   56.  NYX is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  with its physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility  denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that NYX  makes available to the non-disabled public.   58.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(ii), unlawful discriminatory practice  also includes, “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.”    59.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have  been followed by other large business entities and government agencies in making their  websites accessible, including but not limited to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring  that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the basic components  to make its Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of its  business nor result in an undue burden to them.   61.  NYX discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff Young and New York Subclass Members on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of NYX’s Website and its physical locations under  § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins NYX from  continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass  Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   62.  As NYX’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Young seeks injunctive  relief to remedy the discrimination.   63.  Plaintiff Young is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   64.  Plaintiff Young is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   65.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  66.  Plaintiff Young, individually and on behalf the New York Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   68.  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40 provides that “all persons within the  jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations,  advantages, facilities and privileges of any 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, lessee, proprietor, manager,  superintendent, agent, or employee of any such place shall directly or indirectly refuse,  withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities  and privileges thereof . . .”   69.  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c(2) provides that “no person because of . . .   disability, as such term is defined in section two hundred ninety-two of executive law, be  subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any harassment, as defined  in section 240.25 of the penal law, in the exercise thereof, by any other person or by any  firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision.”   70.  NYX’s New York City physical locations are sales establishments and  public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c(2). NYX’s  Website is a service, privilege or advantage of NYX and its Website is a service that is by  and integrated with these establishments.   71.  NYX is subject to N.Y. Civ. Rights Law because it owns and operates its  physical locations and Website. NYX is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law §  40-c(2).   73.  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 41 states that “any corporation which shall violate  any of the provisions of sections forty, forty-a, forty-b or forty two . . . shall for each and  every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor  more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person aggrieved thereby . . .”   74.  Under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-d, “any person who shall violate any of  the provisions of the foregoing section, or subdivision three of section 240.30 or section  240.31 of the penal law, or who shall aid or incite the violation of any of said provisions  shall for each and every violation thereof be liable to 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  Defendants shall reside . . .”   75.  NYX discriminates, and will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff  Young and the New York Subclass Members on the basis of disability, as they are being  directly or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   77.  Plaintiff Young, individually and on behalf the New York City Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   78.  The NYCHRL 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.” N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-107(4)(a).   79.  NYX’s locations are sales establishments and public accommodations  within the meaning of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is  a service that is integrated with its establishments.   80.  NYX is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical  locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the meaning  of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   81.  NYX is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove access  barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its physical  locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that NYX make  available to the non-disabled public.   83.  NYX’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  Subclass because of a disability, violating the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a,) in that it 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.   84.  As such, NYX discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and the New York City Subclass Members because of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its establishments  under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins NYX  from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York City  Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   86.  Plaintiff Young is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines for each offense. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-120(8), 8-126(a).   87.  Plaintiff Young is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   88.  Under N.Y.C. Admin. 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.  89.  Plaintiff Young, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   90.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Young contends, and is informed and believes that NYX denies, that its Website  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods,  services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical locations, which NYX  owns, operates 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.,  N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting  discrimination against the blind.   91.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate now in order that each  of the parties may know its respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   NYX’s Website And Its Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATES CIVIL RIGHTS LAW  