23.  Defendant is a beard care product retailer. Defendant is an online retailer of beard  care products for men, including beard trimmers, beard growth vitamins, beard  brushes, and beard sprays, shampoos, balms, and oils. Defendant owns, operates,  manages and controls the website, www.thebeardclub.com (its “Website”), which  allows Defendant to sell its beard care products on both a national and international  scale. With few to no brick and mortar stores currently operating today,  Defendant’s Website is the exclusive point of sale for Defendant’s products.    24.  Defendant’s Website is a commercial marketplace. The Website offers features of  a physical marketplace in that it allows all consumers to browse goods and services,  provides details about the products, notifies them of special sale or clearance items,  and completes purchases of products, which Defendant will thereafter ensure the  delivery of throughout the United States, including in New York State.  -9-   25.  Defendant’s Website is integrated with its retail business operations, serving as its  gateway. The Website offers products and services for online sale and general  delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to  learn about Defendant’s products and services, browse for items, information,  access navigation bar descriptions, prices, savings and/or coupons and sale discount  items, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for  sale. The features offered by www.thebeardclub.com include products descriptions,  information about the company, review boards, and purchase portals.   26.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny Plaintiff  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 and  visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to  Defendant’s retail operations and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and  benefits offered to the public through its Website.   27.  Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer  without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff has visited the Website  on separate occasions using her NVDA screen-reader.   28.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, www.thebeardclub.com, the last occurring  in August of 2020, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers which effectively  denied her the full enjoyment of the goods and services of the Website. Plaintiff  visited Defendant’s Website with an intent to browse and attempt to beard care  products for her sons, who both have beards.  Despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff  -10-  was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the  website’s lack of a range of features and accommodations, which effectively barred  Plaintiff from being able to make her desired purchase.    29.  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.    30.  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 she or she is expected to insert into the subject field.  This was an issue on Defendant’s Website particularly in the select style section.  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.   31.  The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non- existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing  due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website  once a broken link is encountered. For example, upon coming across a link of  interest, Plaintiff was redirected to an error page. However, the screen-reader failed  to communicate that the link was broken. As a result, Plaintiff could not get back  to her original search.  -11-   32.  Plaintiff  has  made  multiple  attempts  to  complete  a  purchase  on  www.thebeardclub.com, most recently in August of 2020, but was unable to do so  independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website. These  access barriers have caused www.thebeardclub.com to be inaccessible to, and not  independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.    33.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy  Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do. 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.   34.  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 visiting the Website, presently and in the future.     35.  But for the Website’s access barriers, Plaintiff would have returned to and further  utilized Defendant’s Website. However, because the Website was effectively  inaccessible to Plaintiff, she no longer intends to revisit the site.   36.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate  the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   37.  Through her attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the  access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable  by blind and visually-impaired people.  -12-   38.  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.   39.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   40.  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).   41.  Because Defendant’s 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 invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2)  and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring:  -13-  a. that Defendant retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff  (“Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant”) who shall assist it in improving the  accessibility of its Website so the goods and services on them may be  equally accessed and enjoyed by individuals with vision related disabilities;  b. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to ensure  that all employees involved in website development and content  development be given web accessibility training on a periodic basis,  including onsite training to create accessible content at the design and  development stages;  c. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to  perform an automated accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate  whether Website may be equally accessed and enjoyed by individuals with  vision related disabilities on an ongoing basis;  d. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to  perform end-user accessibility/usability testing on a periodic basis with  said testing to be performed by individuals with various disabilities to  evaluate whether Website may be equally accessed and enjoyed by  individuals with vision related disabilities on an ongoing basis;  e. that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to create  an accessibility policy that will be posted on its Website, along with an e- mail address and tollfree phone number to report accessibility-related  problems; and  f. that Plaintiff, their counsel and its experts monitor Defendant’s Website for  up to two years after the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant validates it is  -14-  free of accessibility errors/violations to ensure it has adopted and  implemented adequate accessibility policies.   42.  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.    43.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial amounts of money  in developing and maintaining its Website and, through the site, has generated  significant revenue. The invested amounts are far greater than the associated cost  of making their Website equally accessible to visually-impaired consumers.   44.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  45.  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.   46.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks 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.   -15-   47.  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 and the NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment   of  its  products,  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  products,  services,  facilities,  privileges,  advantages,  or  accommodations to people with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL  and the NYCHRL.   48.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly, to the Plaintiff, are  severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has  violated the ADA, NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL by failing to update or remove  access barriers on its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   49.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class  Members 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 Class Members. 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, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole.  -16-   50.  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.   51.  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.  52.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   53.  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).   54.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodation 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.   55.  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).  -17-   56.  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).   57.  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).   58.  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  -18-  persons. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   59.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  60.  Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   61.  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.”.   62.  The Website www.thebeardclub.com is a sales establishment and public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).   63.  Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates www.thebeardclub.com. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law. § 292(1).   64.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its site, causing www.thebeardclub.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-   65.  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.”   66.  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.”   67.  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.   68.  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:  -20-  (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.   69.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   70.  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  www.thebeardclub.com under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) et seq. and/or its  implementing regulations.    71.  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.   72.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the NYSHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   73.  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.   74.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   75.  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.  -21-  76.  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.   77.  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.”   78.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   79.  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).   80.  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.   81.  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  -22-  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).   82.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the 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 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.   83.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   84.  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.   85.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  -23-   86.  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.   87.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   88.  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.  89.  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.   90.  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, operations  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., N.Y. Exec.  Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting  discrimination against the blind.   91.  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.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  