2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems and require that any third party vendors who participate on its Website to be  fully accessible to the disabled by conforming with WCAG 2.0 criteria.   24.  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 and are  heavily integrated with Defendant’s retail locations. 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 retail locations and the  numerous goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   25.  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 JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited  the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   28.  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, goods, and services Defendants offer 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 accessing the  Website.    29.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical retail locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find: the location and hours of operation of  Defendant’s physical retail location on its Website, information about retail locations and  hours, sales, coupons, discounts, new releases, editorials, events, customer support,  policies, and other important information preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations.  Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's retail locations in the near future if he could access  their website.   30.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   32.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have 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.   33.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   34.  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).   36.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendant’s  retail locations and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise research related products  and services available via the Website and ordering tickets to live music events.   38.   Defendants have, 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.    39.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  40.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 offered  in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   41.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to   certify a New York State 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 Defendant’s  Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    43.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  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 ADA; and  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 the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   44.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the  Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that  Defendants  have violated the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   46.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class Members 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.   47.  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.  48.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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).   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 goods, 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 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).   53.  Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination  also 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; and 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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).   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 himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   57.  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.”   59.  Defendants are subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns  and operates its physical locations and Website. Defendants are a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   60.  Defendants are 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 Defendant’s physical locations 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.   61.  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".   62.  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.”   64.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law §  296(2) in that  Defendants have:  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.   65.   Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   67.  Defendant’s actions 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.   68.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   69.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   70.  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.  71.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   72.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   74.  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.”   75.  Defendant’s New York State physical locations are sales establishments  and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its Website is  a service that is heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   76.  Defendants are subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendants are a person within the meaning  of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   77.  Defendants are violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with Defendant’s physical locations 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.   78.  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 . . .”   80.   Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   81.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members 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.   82.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each  and every offense.  83.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York City Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   85.  Defendant’s  locations  are  sales  establishments  and  public  accommodations within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its  Website is a service that is heavily integrated with its establishments and is a gateway  thereto.   86.  Defendants are subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  physical locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   87.  Defendants are 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 its physical locations 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.   89.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the City Sub-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 Defendants 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.   90.   Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   91.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class and City Subclass on  the basis 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 Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and  members of the City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   92.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   94.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   95.  Under N.Y.C. Administrative 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.  96.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and City  Sub-Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   97.  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 goods,  services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical locations, which  Defendant owns, operates and controls and 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.   98.  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   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  