(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  110. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  111. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that Dominos.com  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services  and facilities of Dominos.com and by extension Domino’s Pizza Restaurants, which Domino’s  Pizza owns, operates, and/or 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. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination  against the blind.  112. 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.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law,   Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   22.  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 Dominos.com and as a result have been denied access  to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Domino’s Pizza Restaurants, during the  relevant statutory period.”   23.  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.   24.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of Dominos.com and  Domino’s Pizza Restaurants. 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 Dominos.com and by extension the goods and services offered through  Defendant’s website to Domino’s Pizza Restaurants.   26.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class. The class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that  Domino’s Pizza has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove  access barriers on their website, Dominos.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class  of people who are legally blind.   27.  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. 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.   29.  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.   30.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  31.  Domino’s Pizza operates Domino’s Pizza Restaurants, an American casual dining  chain specializing in pizza. The company currently operates numerous restaurants in the state of  New York.   32.  Dominos.com is a service and benefit offered by Domino’s Pizza and Domino’s  Pizza Restaurants throughout the United States, including New York State. Dominos.com is  owned, controlled and/or operated by Domino’s Pizza.   33.  Dominos.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online  sale and pick-up or delivery that are available in Domino’s Pizza restaurant locations. The online  store allows the user to browse menu items, food descriptions and prices; view the nutritional value  of each item and specials; find restaurant locations; and perform a variety of other functions.   35.  This case arises out of Domino’s Pizza’s policy and practice of denying the blind  access to Dominos.com, including the goods and services offered by Domino’s Pizza restaurants  through Dominos.com. Due to Domino’s Pizza’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to  Dominos.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Domino’s Pizza  Restaurants, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through  Dominos.com.   36.  Domino’s Pizza denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through Dominos.com by preventing them from freely navigating Dominos.com.   37.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting business  and for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc., for sighted and blind persons.   38.  The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Except for a blind person  whose residual vision is still sufficient to use magnification, screen access software provides the  only method by which a blind person can independently access the Internet. Unless websites are  designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons are unable to fully access Internet websites  and the information, products and services contained therein.   40.  Dominos.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 forms, inaccessible image  maps, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling; the denial of keyboard access; and the  requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   42.  Similarly, Dominos.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 Dominos.com do not contain adequate alt-text and are  therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and other blind individuals.   43.  Dominos.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 Dominos.com, these forms include search fields to locate menu items, fields  that specify the number of items desired, and fields used to fill-out personal information, including  address and credit card information. Due to the lack of adequate labeling, Plaintiff and blind  customers cannot easily make purchases or inquiries as to Domino’s Pizza’s menu items or specials,  nor can they enter their personal identification and financial information with confidence and  security.   45.  The lack of navigation links on Domino’s Pizza’s website makes attempting to  navigate through Dominos.com even more time consuming and confusing for Plaintiff and blind  consumers.   46.  Dominos.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, Dominos.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 Dominos.com.   47.  Due to Dominos.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in turn  spend extended time, energy and/or money to make their purchases at a Domino’s Pizza restaurant.  Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the restaurant or require assistance in  navigating the restaurant. By contrast, if Dominos.com was accessible, a blind person could  independently investigate products and programs and make purchases via the Internet as sighted  individuals can and do.   48.  Dominos.com thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Dominos.com and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of Domino’s Pizza restaurants in New York State.   50.  As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that Defendant’s  website, Dominos.com contains access barriers causing the website to be inaccessible, and not  independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   51.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Dominos.com and Domino’s Pizza Restaurants.   52.  Domino’s Pizza 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.   53.  Domino’s Pizza utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  54.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations  as if set forth fully herein.   56.  Domino’s Pizza Restaurants located in New York State and throughout the United  States are sales establishments and public accommodations within the definition of 42 U.S.C. §  12181(7)(E). Dominos.com is a service, privilege or advantage of Domino’s Pizza Restaurants.  Dominos.com is a service that is by and integrated with these restaurants.   57.  Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because they own and operate  Domino’s Pizza Restaurants.   58.  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.   59.  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.   61.  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 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.”   62.  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 large 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 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.   63.  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 Domino’s Pizza Restaurants  who are blind have been denied full and equal access to Dominos.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.    64.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    66.  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.   67.  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.   68.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     69.  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.  70.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   71.  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.”   73.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because they own and  operate the Domino’s Pizza Restaurants and Dominos.com. Defendant is a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   74.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Dominos.com, causing Dominos.com and the services integrated  with Domino’s Pizza Restaurants 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.    75.  Specifically, 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.”   76.  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.”   78.  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. Exc. 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  (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.   79.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   81.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   82.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and fines  pursuant to N.Y. Exc. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   83.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   84.  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.   85.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    86.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   87.  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 …”     89.  Domino’s Pizza located in New York State and throughout the United States are  sales establishments and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law  § 40-c(2). Dominos.com is a service, privilege or advantage of Domino’s Pizza. Dominos.com  is a service that is by and integrated with these restaurants.   90.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own and operate  Domino’s Pizza and Dominos.com. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law  § 40-c(2).   91.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Dominos.com, causing Dominos.com and the services integrated  with Domino’s Pizza 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.    92.  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 large 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 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.   94.  Specifically, under NY 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 defendant shall reside …”   95.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   96.  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 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.    97.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per instance,  as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each and every offense.  98.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  