(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  103. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  104.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that the Website contains  access barriers denying deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals the full and equal access to the  goods and services of the Website, which Defendant 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 deaf and hard of  hearing.  105.  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.  (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 City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, 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 State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   19.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in the United States who have  attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of  goods and services offered by the Website during the relevant statutory period.”    20.  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 deaf and hard-of-hearing  individuals in New York State who have attempted to access the Website and as a result have  been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by the Website, during the  relevant statutory period.”   22.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying deaf and hard-of-hearing persons access to the goods and services  of the Website. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, deaf  and hard-of-hearing persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to  independently browse and watch videos on the Website.   23.  There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  a.  Whether the Website is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  b.  Whether the Website is a “place or provider of public accommodation”  under the laws of New York;  c.  Whether Defendant through the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with hearing disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant through the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with hearing disabilities in violation of the laws of New York.   24.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the Class. The Class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are deaf or hard of hearing, and claim that Defendant has violated the  ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on the  Website, so it can be independently accessible to the Class of people who are legally deaf or hard  of hearing.   26.  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.   27.  Judicial efficiency will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action  in that it will avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the  filing of numerous similar suits by people with hearing disabilities throughout the United States.   28.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the Class, unless otherwise indicated.  29.  Defendant operates the Website, which provides articles, information and videos  on popular culture, celebrities, fashion, and reality television. It delivers information and  entertainment to tens of millions of people and businesses across the United States.    30.  The Website is a service and benefit offered by Defendant throughout the United  States, including New York State. The Website is owned, controlled and/or operated by  Defendant.   32.   Defendant’s videos are available with the click of a mouse and are played  through the Internet on computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.   33.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of denying the deaf and  hard of hearing access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant  through the Website. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the  Website, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the  Website, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through  the Website.   34.  Defendant denies the deaf and hard of hearing access to goods, services, and  information made available through the Website by preventing them from freely enjoying,  interpreting, and understanding the content on the Website.   35.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting  business and for doing everyday activities such as reading news, watching videos, etc., for deaf  and hard-of-hearing persons.   37.  There are well established guidelines for making websites accessible to disabled  people. These guidelines have been in place for several years and have been followed successfully  by other large business entities in making their websites accessible. The Web Accessibility  Initiative (“WAI”), a project of the World Wide Web Consortium which is the leading standards  organization of the Web, has developed guidelines for website accessibility, called the Web  Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”). The federal government has also promulgated  website accessibility standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines are  readily available via the Internet, so that a business designing a website can easily access them.  These guidelines recommend several basic components for making websites accessible, including  but not limited to adding closed captioning to video content.    38.  The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and  other deaf or hard-of-hearing persons, including but not limited to the lack of closed captioning.  This barrier is in violation of WCAG 2.1 Guideline 1.2.2, which mandates that video content  contain captioning.    40.  The Website thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in New York State.   41.  Plaintiff attempted to watch the video “This Season on Married to Medicine…”  on the Website in March 2018 but was unable to do so independently because of the lack of  closed captioning on the Website, causing it to be inaccessible and not independently usable by  deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.    42.  As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that the Website  contains access barriers causing the Website to be inaccessible, and not independently usable by,  deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.   43.  These access barriers have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment  of, the goods, benefits, and services of Defendant and the Website.   44.  Defendant engages 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 deaf and hard- of-hearing Class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  (b)  constructing and maintaining a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or  obviously inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members; and/or  (c)  failing to take actions to correct access barriers in the face of substantial  harm and discrimination to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members.   46.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   47.  Title III of the Americans 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).   48.  Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by Title III of  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) (“place of exhibition and entertainment,” “place of recreation,” and  “service establishments”).    49.  Defendant has failed to make its videos accessible to individuals who are deaf or  hard of hearing by failing to provide closed captioning for videos displayed on the Website.   50.  Discrimination under Title III includes the denial of an opportunity for the person  who is deaf or hard of hearing to participate in programs or services, or providing a service that  is not as effective as what is provided to others. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I-III).   51.  Discrimination specifically includes the failure to provide “effective  communication” to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals through auxiliary aids and services,  such as captioning, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(III); 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(C).   65.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   66.  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.”   67.  Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by N.Y. Exec.  Law § 292(9).    68.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   69.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing the videos displayed on the Website to be  completely inaccessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. This inaccessibility denies deaf and  hard-of-hearing patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant  makes available to the non-disabled public.    71.  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.”   72.  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 deaf and hard- of-hearing 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 deaf and hard-of-hearing Class members;  and/or  (c)  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to deaf and hard-of-hearing Class  members.   74.  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 the 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 members of the Subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   75.  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.   76.  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.   77.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   78.  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.   79.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    81.  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 . . . .”     82.  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.”   83.  The Website is a public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 40-c(2).    84.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and operates  the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   85.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing videos on the Website to be completely  inaccessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. This inaccessibility denies deaf and hard-of-hearing  patrons full and equal access to the goods and services that Defendant makes available to the  non-disabled public.    87.  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 . . . .”   88.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   89.  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.    90.  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.  91.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if  set forth fully herein.   93.  The Website is a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-102(9).    94.  Defendant is subject to City Law because it owns and operates the Website.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(1).   95.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services integrated  with the Website to be completely inaccessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. This  inaccessibility denies deaf and hard-of-hearing 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 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).   97.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  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 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 the 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 Subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.  