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.   2.1 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG   21.  Defendant is a men’s care company that owns and operates www.justformen.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 and prices, 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.   25.  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. Such issues were predominant in the section  where Plaintiff was attempting, but was unsuccessful, in making a purchase.   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.    29.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy  Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do.    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.   34.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide  Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination,  including but not limited to the following policies or practices:  a.  Constructing and maintaining a website that is inaccessible to   visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;  b.  Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually impaired individuals,  including Plaintiff; and,  c.  Failing to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of   substantial harm and discrimination to blind and visually-impaired  consumers, such as Plaintiff, as a member of a protected class.   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.    40.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  41.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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.   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.    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.   49.  Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides:  No individual shall be discriminated against 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).   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).   54.  The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the  regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected  class of persons under 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, Plaintiff 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. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and  equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are  ongoing.   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.   58.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   59.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website,  making it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   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).   63.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   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.   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.   70.  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, 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., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting  discrimination against the blind.   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 NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  