22.  On or around August of 2020, Plaintiff visited the Website, using a popular screen  reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access, with the intent of browsing  and potentially making a purchase.    24.  As a result of visiting the Website, Plaintiff is aware that the Website includes  multiple barriers making it impossible for himself, and any other visually impaired  or blind person, from enjoying access to the Website’s content equally to that of a  sighted user.   25.  For example, many features on the Website fail to accurately describe the contents  of graphical images, fail to properly label title, fails to distinguish one page from  another, contain multiple broken links, contain headings that do not describe the  topic or purpose, and the keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where  the keyboard focus indicator is visible.   26.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy  Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do.    27.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has not, and have never, had adequate  policies and procedures in place to ensure the Website is and will remain accessible  to the blind and/or visually impaired.   28.  Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website,  Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons, who need screen-readers to access  websites, have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s Website,  and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered to the public through the  Website.   30.  If the Website were equally accessible to all, and if simple compliance with the  WCAG 2.1 guidelines were met, Plaintiff could independently navigate the  Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   31.  Because of this, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional  discrimination, including maintaining a website that is inaccessible to members of  a protected class.   32.  Due to Defendant’s violations of the ADA, and the harm it has caused, Plaintiff  seeks damages, fees, costs, and injunctive relief.    33.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  34.  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,  during the relevant statutory period.   35.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.    37.  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 or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on  its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   38.  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.   40.  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.  41.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   42.  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).   43.  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodations 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.   44.  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).   46.  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).   47.  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  persons. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   48.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  50.  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.”   51.  Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   52.  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).   53.  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.   55.  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.   56.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   57.  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.   58.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   60.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   61.  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.  62.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   63.  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., and N.Y.C.  Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   64.  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.  