2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons   to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1  guidelines; and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on Defendant’s   Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   20.  Defendant is a software company, and owns and operates the website,  www.opensea.io (its “Website”), offering features which should allow all  consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the  delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.   21.  Defendant operates and distributes its products throughout the United States,  including New York.   22.  Defendant offers the commercial website, www.opensea.io, to the public. The  website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and  services whereby Defendant allows for the delivery of those ordered goods to  consumers throughout the United States, including New York State. The goods and  services offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following: the  ability to browse digital assets for purchase, view a blog, obtain defendant’s contact  information, and related goods and services available online.   24.  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.   25.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in May 2021, Plaintiff  encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to  the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the  public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and  services of the Website.   26.  While attempting to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple  accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired people that include, but are not  limited to, the following:   28.  Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or purpose of the link to  not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen- reader users;   29.  Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results  in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and   30.  Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link  contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then has  no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information  contained in PDFs.   32.  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.     33.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from learning  about those various digital assets for purchase, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to determine and or purchase items from  its Website, among other things.   34.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate  the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   35.  Through his 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.   37.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   38.  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).   40.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually- impaired people could independently view service items, shop for and otherwise  research related goods and services available via the Website.   41.  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.    42.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining their Website and has generated significant revenue  from the Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making  their Website equally accessible to visually impaired customers.    43.  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 himself and all others similarly situated, seeks 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 those  services, during the relevant statutory period.    46.  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.    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, NYSYRHL or 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.   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 himself 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 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.   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).   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).   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  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, 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.   62.  Defendant’s Website and its’ sale of goods to the general public,  constitute sales  establishments and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law  § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant.   63.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and operates  its Website. 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 Website, causing its Website to be completely inaccessible to  the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the  facilities, services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   65.  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".   67.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been  followed by other large business entities and government agencies in making their  website accessible, including but not limited to: adding alt-text to graphics and  ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the  basic components to make its 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 NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)  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.   69.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   71.  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.   72.  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.   73.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   74.  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.  75.  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.   76.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 41.   78.  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.”   79.   Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its  Website which offers such goods and services to the general public is required to  be equally accessible to all.   80.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and operates  their Website, and Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law §  40-c(2).   81.  Defendant is 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 goods and  services integrated with such 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.   82.  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 . . .”   84.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   85.  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.   86.  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.  87.  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.   89.  Defendant’s Website is a  sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   90.  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).   91.  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.   92.  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. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a).   94.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   95.  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.   96.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   97.  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.   98.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   99.  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.  Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  