(Declaratory Relief)  112. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 111 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  113. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that Travelonbags.com  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services  and facilities of Travelonbags.com, which Travelon owns, operates and/or controls, fails to  comply with applicable laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the American 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. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  114. 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.  26  (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.))   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.))  21   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  100. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 99 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  101. N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) 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.”  102. Travelonbags.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9).    103. Defendant is subject to City Law because it owns and operates  Travelonbags.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code §  8-102(1).  104. Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing  to update or remove access barriers to Travelonbags.com, causing Travelonbags.com 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.  Specifically, Defendant is required to “make reasonable accommodation to the needs of  24  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. Administrative Code § 8- 107(15)(a).  105. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a)  and § 8-107(15)(a) in that Defendant 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.  106. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.  107. 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Travelonbags.com under N.Y.C. Administrative Code §  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.  25  108. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of City law and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  109. 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.  110. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  111. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) and the  remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment  as set forth below.  25. Defendant, Travel Caddy, Inc., controls and operates Travelonbags.com in New  York State and throughout the United States and the world.    26. Travelonbags.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for   Online sale.  The online store allows the user to browse bags, wallets, cases, and accessories, make  purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.   27. Among the features offered by Travelonbags.com are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Travelon on social media, using  such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to purchase the various lines of bags,  wallets, cases, and accessories; and  (c) learning about career opportunities, promotions, and about the company.   28. This case arises out of Travelon’s policy and practice of denying the blind  access to the goods and services offered by Travelonbags.com.  Due to Travelon’s failure and  refusal to remove access barriers to Travelonbags.com, blind individuals have been and are being  denied equal access to Travelon, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered  to the public through Travelonbags.com.   29. Travelon denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available  through  Travelonbags.com  by  preventing  them  from  freely  navigating  Travelonbags.com.   30. Travelonbags.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by  Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software.  These barriers are  pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down  menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of  9  keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the  same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   31. Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical  image on a website.  Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a  screen-reader can speak the alternative text while sighted users see the picture.  Alt-text does not  change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over  the picture.  There are many important pictures on Travelonbags.com that lack a text equivalent.   The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a  description of the graphics (screen-readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of  the image to a blind computer user).  As a result, Plaintiff and blind Travelonbags.com customers  are unable to determine what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make  purchases.  Specifically, Plaintiff was unable to learn about any specific product.  She was unable  to learn about the material and the dimensions.    32. Travelonbags.com also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to  allow blind shoppers who use screen-readers to locate and accurately fill-out online forms.  On a  shopping site such as Travelonbags.com, these forms include search fields to locate bags, wallets,  cases, and accessories, fields that specify the color, and fields used to fill-out personal information,  including address and credit card information.  Due to lack of adequate labeling, Plaintiff and blind  customers cannot make purchases or inquiries as to Defendant’s merchandise, nor can they enter  their personal identification and financial information with confidence and security.  When  Plaintiff attempted to select a color, the screen-reader would not recognize the selection and would  not allow her to continue to checkout.  Consequently, Plaintiff was unable to view any of the  products, unable to learn about any of the products, unable to “add to cart”, unable to proceed to  checkout and unable to complete a transaction.  10   33. Similarly, Travelonbags.com lacks accessible drop-down menus.  Drop-down  menus allow customers to locate and choose products as well as specify the color of certain  items.  On Travelonbags.com, blind customers are not aware if the desired products, such as  wallets, have been added to the shopping cart because the screen-reader does not indicate the  type of product.  Moreover, blind customers are unable to select the color of the product they  desire.  Therefore, blind customers are essentially prevented from purchasing any items on  Travelonbags.com.   34. Furthermore, Travelonbags.com lacks accessible image maps.  An image map  is a function that combines multiple words and links into one single image.  Visual details on this  single image highlight different “hot spots” which, when clicked on, allow the user to jump to  many different destinations within the website.  For an image map to be accessible, it must  contain alt-text for the various “hot spots.”  The image maps on Travelonbags.com’s menu page  do not contain adequate alt-text and are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and the other blind  individuals attempting to make a purchase.  When Plaintiff tried to access the menu link in order  to make a purchase, she was unable to access it completely.   35. Travelonbags.com also lacks accessible forms.  Color boxes allow customers  to specify the color of certain items.  On Travelonbags.com, blind customers are unable to select  specific color because the screen-reader does not indicate the function of the box.  As a result,  blind customers are denied access to the color box. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to locate the  shopping cart because the shopping cart form does not specify the purpose of the shopping cart.   As a result, blind customers are denied access to the shopping cart.  Consequently, blind  customers are unsuccessful in adding products into their shopping carts and are essentially  prevented from purchasing items on Travelonbags.com.  11   36. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Travelonbags.com even more time consuming and confusing for  Plaintiff and blind consumers.   37. Travelonbags.com requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.  Yet,  it is a fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be accessible to Plaintiff and  blind people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page using only the keyboard.   Indeed, Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual  activity of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on the page to another.  Thus,  Travelonbags.com’s inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a  transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or  make purchases on Travelonbags.com.   38. Due to Travelonbags.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must  in turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and-mortar  retailers.  Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the stores or require assistance in  navigating the stores.  By contrast, if Travelonbags.com was accessible, a blind person could  independently investigate products and make purchases via the Internet as sighted individuals  can and do.  According to WCAG 2.1 Guideline 2.4.1, a mechanism is necessary to bypass  blocks of content that are repeated on multiple webpages because requiring users to extensively  tab before reaching the main content is an unacceptable barrier to accessing the website.   Plaintiff must tab through every navigation bar option and footer on Defendant’s website in an  attempt to reach the desired service.  Thus, Travelonbags.com’s inaccessible design, which  requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the  ability to independently make purchases on Travelonbags.com.  12   39. Travelonbags.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal  access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Travelonbags.com and who would otherwise be  able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Travelonbags.com in New York State  and throughout the United States.   40. Plaintiff, Rasheta Bunting, has made numerous attempts to complete a  purchase on Travelonbags.com, most recently in August 2018, but was unable to do so  independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website.  These access  barriers have caused Travelonbags.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by,  blind and visually-impaired persons.  Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was  unable to purchase a zip wallet.   41. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Travelonbags.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be  inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   42. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Travelonbags.com.   43. Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not  limited to the following policies or practices:  (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.  13   44. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   45. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,  the goods, benefits and services of Travelonbags.com, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an  injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of defendant’s  conduct.  46. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted  to access Travelonbags.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods  and services offered by Travelonbags.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   47. Plaintiff seeks certification of the following New York subclass pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally blind individuals in New  York State who have attempted to access Travelonbags.com and as a result have been denied  access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Travelonbags.com, during the relevant  statutory period.”   48. There are hundreds of thousands of visually-impaired persons in New York  State.  There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States who are visually- impaired. Id.  Thus, the persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is  impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to  the Court.   49. This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an   14  inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of  Travelonbags.com.  Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers,  blind persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to independently browse,  select and shop on Travelonbags.com.   50. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  (a) Whether Travelonbags.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  (b) Whether Travelonbags.com is a “place or provider of public accommodation”  under the laws of New York;  (c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Travelonbags.com, denies the full  and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  (d) Whether Defendant, through its website, Travelonbags.com, denies the full  and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with visual disabilities in violation of the law of New York.   51. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.  The class,  similar to the Plaintiff, is severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claims Travelon has  violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on  their website, Travelonbags.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who  are legally blind.   52. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic  to the members of the class.  Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R.  15  Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Class, making appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and  the Class as a whole.   53. Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members clearly predominate over questions  affecting only individual class members, and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   54. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of 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.    55. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  56. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   57. Title III of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)  provides that “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.”  Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or  criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of  disability.”  42 U.S.C. § 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).   16   58. Travelonbags.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).     59. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Travelonbags.com.   60. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of an entity.   61. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of 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.   62. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II),  unlawful discrimination 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.”   63. In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III),  unlawful discrimination also includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps as may  be necessary to ensure that no individual with 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  17  the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or  would result in an undue burden.”   64. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their websites accessible, including but not limited  to ensuring adequate prompting and accessible alt-text.  Incorporating the basic components to  make their website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s  business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   65. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Patrons of Travelon who are blind  have been denied full and equal access to Travelonbags.com, have not been provided services  that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided services that  are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled patrons.   66. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   67. 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Travelonbags.com in violation of Title III of the  Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   68. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass will continue to  suffer irreparable harm.  18   69. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA, and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   70. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   71. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  72. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   73. 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.”.   74. Travelonbags.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     75. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Travelonbags.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. §  292(1).   76. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Travelonbags.com, causing Travelonbags.com to be completely  inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons the full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.  19   77. Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 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.”   78. In addition, 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.”   79. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   8   80. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class on the basis of a disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y.  Exec. Law § 296(2) in that Defendant has:  (a) constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  20  (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.   81. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   82. 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Travelonbags.com under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) et  seq. 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.   83. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the New York State  Human Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   84. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   85. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   86. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  87. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   88. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   89. N.Y. Civil 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 . . .”   90. N.Y. Civil 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.”   91. Travelonbags.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within  the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     92. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates Travelonbags.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40- c(2).   93. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Travelonbags.com, causing Travelonbags.com to be completely  22  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.   94. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   95. In addition, N.Y. Civil 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 . . .”   96. Specifically, under N.Y. Civil 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 defendant shall reside . . .”   97. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   98. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class on the basis of disability are  23  being directly indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   99. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense. 