15.  Defendant is an online retailer of ice cream products.  Through the Website,  customers can purchase different flavored ice cream products either per pint or as  collections.   16.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with its retail operations.  Through the Website, customers can learn about the company, purchase ice cream, learn  about its founders, read the blog and read reviews.      18.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website,  thereby denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its retail  operations. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website, Plaintiff  Tatum-Rios and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal  access to Defendant’s products and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits  offered to the public through its Website.   19.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios cannot use a computer without the assistance of  screen-reading software. She is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses  it to access the Internet. She has visited the Website on separate occasions using screen- reading software.   23.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items; learn about items; and complete  a purchase, as sighted individuals can.   24.  Through her attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    26.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   27.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   28.  Because its Website has never been equally accessible, and because  Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to  become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks a permanent injunction under  42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios to assist Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for its  Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.1 AA compliant;  b.  Training Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines; and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   30.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its rights.   31.  Defendant 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.   32.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  33.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios 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 offered by Defendant during the relevant statutory period  (“Class Members”).   34.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios 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 by Defendant during the relevant statutory  period (“New York Subclass Members”).   36.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members, New  York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “commercial marketplace”  effecting interstate commerce;  b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” or a  service or good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA;   c.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating Title III of the ADA; and  e.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   38.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  Class and Subclasses’ interests because she has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because she 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 Defendant 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.   39.  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.   40.  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.    41.   Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   43.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodation within the definition of  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or advantage  of Defendant’s online retail operations. The Website is a service that is integrated with  Defendant’s online retail operation.   44.  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).   45.  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).   47.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, 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, she 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.    48.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios requests the relief as set forth below.  49.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, 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.   50.  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.”   52.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its Website,  which is marketed to consumers located in the State of New York. Defendant is a “person”  under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   53.  Defendant 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 online retail operations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility  denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   54.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(i), unlawful discriminatory practice  includes, among other things, “a refusal to make reasonable modifications in policies,  practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities,  privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless such  person can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the  nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations being offered or would  result in an undue burden.”   55.  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.”    57.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in that  Defendant 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.   58.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Tatum-Rios 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 Defendant’s Website and its online retail  operations under § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court  enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the  New York Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   60.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios 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.   61.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   62.  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.  63.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, 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.   64.  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).   65.  Defendant’s Website and, therein, its online retail operations, constitute  sales establishments and public accommodations under NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §  8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is integrated with its online retail operations.     67.  Defendant is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove access  barriers to Website, causing its Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   68.  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).   69.  Defendant’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.   71.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   72.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios 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).   73.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   74.  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.  75.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   77.  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   Defendant, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  