14.  Defendant is an online retailer of clothing, accessories, and facemasks for  adults. On the Website, customers can purchase hats, gloves, masks and clothing.     15.  With no brick and mortar stores of its own, Defendant relies on the  Website to reach consumers.     16.  The State of New York has required that all residents wear protective face  masks when out in public.  Defendant now offers face masks for sale on its Website.    17.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with its retail operations.  Through Defendant’s Website, customers can learn about Defendant, including its history  and manufacturing process; learn about Defendant’s products, including construction  details and materials used. Through its advertising, Defendant is trying to sell its products  to consumers in New York.      19.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website,  thereby denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its online  retail operations. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website,  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied  equal access to Defendant’s goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through its  Website.   20.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios cannot use a computer without the assistance of  screen-reading software. She is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses  it to access the Internet. She has visited the Website on separate occasions using screen- reading software.   23.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and  equally use or enjoy the facilities, goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on  its Website. The Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Tatum-Rios encountered have  caused a denial of her full and equal access in the past, and now deter her on a regular  basis from accessing the Website.    24.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items, learn about Defendant’s  products, and purchase items for delivery, as sighted individuals can.   25.  Through her attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    27.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   28.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   30.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies on  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.   31.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   32.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   34.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks to certify a nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind individuals in the United States who have  attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the  equal enjoyment of goods and services Defendant offers during the relevant statutory  period (“Class Members”).   35.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks to certify a State of New York subclass under  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind individuals in the State of New York  who have attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the  equal enjoyment of goods and services Defendant offers during the relevant statutory  period (“New York Subclass Members”).   36.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks to 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services Defendant offers during the relevant statutory period  (“New York City Subclass Members”).   38.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios’s claims are typical of the Class Members, New  York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members: they are all severely  visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has violated Title III of  the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its  Website so it can be independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   39.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  Class and Subclasses’ interests because she has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because she has no  interests antagonistic to the Class or Subclasses. Class certification of the claims is  appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act  on grounds generally applicable to the Class and Subclasses, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   41.  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.   42.   Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   43.  Title III of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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).   44.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodation under Title III of the  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service.   45.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   47.  Under 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).   48.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, who is a member of a protected class of persons under  Title III of the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the major life  activity of sight within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A). Furthermore,  she has been denied full and equal access to the Website, has not been provided services  that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has been provided services  that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons.    50.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of the New York  Subclass Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as  if fully set forth herein.   51.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodation  under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage  of Defendant. Defendant’s Website is a service.   52.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its  Website. Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   53.  Defendant is violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website to be completely inaccessible to the  blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities,  goods and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public. N.Y. Exec.  Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i), 296(2)(c)(ii).   55.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in  that Defendant has:  a.  Constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to Class  Members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  Constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive  and/or obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  c.  Failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   56.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and New York Subclass Members on the basis of disability  in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant’s Website under § 296(2) et seq.  and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing  to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members will  continue to suffer irreparable harm.   58.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf the New York City  Subclass Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as  if fully set forth herein.   59.   Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodation  under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is  integrated with these locations.   60.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  Website.  Defendant is therefore a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code §  8-102(1).   61.  Defendant is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to Website, causing its Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin. Code  §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   63.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and the New York City Subclass Members  because 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  the New York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   64.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Tatum-Rios seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination, compensatory damages, civil penalties and  fines for each offense, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§  8-120(8), 8-126(a).  65.  Plaintiff Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   67.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate now in order that each  of the parties may know its respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant, Its Website and Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  