14.  Jo Malone owns and operates stores throughout the United States,  including locations at 330 Bleecker Street, New York, New York, 1048 Lexington  Avenue, New York, New York, and 225 Liberty Street, New York, New York.  Jo  Malone also sells its products at third-party retailers throughout the United States  including Bloomingdales, Sephora and Blue Mercury. At these locations and third-party  retailers, it sells perfumes, candles, body creams and similar items.   15.  Jo Malone’s Website is heavily integrated with its stores and third-party  retailers, serving as their gateway. Through the Website, Jo Malone’s customers are, inter  alia, able to: learn information about the stores’ locations and hours of operation; book a  spa service; learn about the items for sale in the stores and online, including available  sizes, the materials used, details about the item and engraving options; and purchase  items for delivery.    17.  Plaintiff Olsen cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen- reading software. He is, however, a proficient screen-reader user and uses it to access the  Internet. He has visited the Website on separate occasions using screen-reading software.   21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Olsen could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items, locate Jo Malone’s stores and  third-party retailers and learn their hours of operation, learn about the items for sale and  complete a desired transaction such as purchasing an option or booking an appointment  as sighted individuals do.   22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Olsen has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    24.  Jo Malone therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   25.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Olsen seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   27.  Although Jo Malone may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating its Website, Jo Malone 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.   28.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Olsen and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   29.  Jo Malone 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.   30.  Jo Malone has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  31.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 Jo Malone’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Jo Malone’s stores and third-party retailers  during the relevant statutory period (“Class Members”).   33.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 New York City 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 Jo Malone’s stores and third-party retailers  during the relevant statutory period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   35.  Plaintiff Olsen’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 Jo Malone 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.   36.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 Jo Malone 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.   37.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class and Subclass Members  predominate over questions affecting only individuals, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   38.  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.   40.  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).   41.  Jo Malone’s stores and third-party retailers are public accommodations  under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Jo Malone’s stores and third-party retailers. The Website is a service that is  integrated with these locations.   42.  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).   43.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,  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).   45.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Olsen, 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 under 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.    46.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Olsen requests the relief as set forth below.  47.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf of the New York Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   48.  Jo Malone’s State of New York stores constitute sales establishments and  public accommodations under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Jo Malone’s Website is a  service, privilege or advantage of those stores. Jo Malone’s Website is a service that is by  and integrated with those stores.   50.  Jo Malone is violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its  stores to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons  full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Jo Malone makes available  to the non-disabled public. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i), 296(2)(c)(ii).   51.  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.   52.  Jo Malone’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in  that Jo Malone has:  a.  Constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to 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.   54.  As Jo Malone’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   55.  Plaintiff Olsen is entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   56.  Plaintiff Olsen is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   57.  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.  58.  Plaintiff Olsen, 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.   59.  Jo Malone’s New York City locations are sales establishments and public  accommodations under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website  is a service that is integrated with those establishments.   61.  Jo Malone is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its stores  to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full  and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Jo Malone makes available to  the non-disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   62.  Jo Malone’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.   63.  As such, Jo Malone discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Olsen 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 Jo  Malone from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New  York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   65.  Plaintiff Olsen 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).   66.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   67.  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.  68.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   69.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Olsen contends, and is informed and believes that Jo Malone 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 stores, which Jo Malone  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.   70.  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   Jo Malone, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  