16.  Defendant is an online retailer of botanical supplements.  Through the  Website, customers can purchase supplement blends designed for various needs  including, increasing energy, improving brain function,  immunity, or skin, relieving  -7-  stress, aiding in digestion, and other wellness issues.  Defendant does not operate any  brick-and-mortar locations, so the Website is Defendant’s exclusive point of sale.              17.  Defendant’s Website is a commercial marketplace.  Through the Website,  customers can view and purchase Defendant’s entire line of products.  Customers can  also get answers to frequently asked questions, create and manage an account, learn about  shipping and refunds, and contact the company via an online form.     18.   Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with its retail operations.   Through the Website, Defendant’s customers are also, inter alia, able to: learn about  Defendant’s products, including where the ingredients are sourced, purity standards, and  health benefits; get recipes using Defendant’s products; read the blog; and learn about the  company.   19.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Olsen 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  Olsen and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to  Defendant’s online retail operations and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and  benefits offered to the public through its Website.   20.  Plaintiff Olsen cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen- reading software. He is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to  access the Internet. He has visited the Website on separate occasions using JAWS screen- reading software.  -8-   21.  During his visits to the Website, the last occurring on or about July 27,  2021, Plaintiff Olsen encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the full  enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website, as well as to the facilities,  goods, and services of Defendant’s online retail operations. Because of these barriers, he  was unable to, substantially equal to sighted individuals:    a.  Know what is on the Website. This is in part due to the fact that  images are not accompanied by the requisite alt-text. For example, on the home page,  there are several images underlaying text.  While the text is accessible, the images are not  and the text does not describe what is being depicted in the images.  On the shopping  pages, images are all labeled with the product name.  On each product page, a sighted  user can see images of the packaging, the nutrition label, and weekly expected results.   These images are completely inaccessible to screen reader users and the information, if  available at all, is not easy to locate elsewhere on the Website.  Therefore, screen reader  users cannot learn about products and product benefits equal to sighted users.  Screen  reader users also have difficulty learning about products available for purchase on the  Website because the main navigation menu does not expand for screen reader users as it  does for sighted users.  For example, a sighted user can hover over “Shop” and see a  submenu with the various types of products one can shop for, organized by type or  benefits, or what some of Defendant’s best-selling products are.  Because these submenus  are not accessible to screen reader users, they must take extra steps to learn about the  products and they cannot easily shop by benefit or format.  Also, due to the  inaccessibility of the submenu, several pages are completely inaccessible to screen reader  -9-  users, such as the page “Hanah launches purity quality results” on which one can learn  about where the ingredients are sourced and lab testing to ensure quality.    b.  Navigate the Website. Plaintiff Olsen found this site difficult to  navigate using his screen reader. As mentioned above, the main navigation menu at the  top of the page does not expand, as it does for sighted user.  Clicking on “shop” just loads  a new page with all of Defendant’s products and no way to filter.  Similarly, “about”  leads to the page “company” with no way to reach the other pages under the “about” link.   There are several unlabeled elements throughout the Website, including the links for  “cart,” “account,” and “search.”  Therefore, a screen reader user cannot easily search the  Website by keyword, manage an account, or access the shopping cart.  When shopping  for items, the one-time purchase or subscribe and save options are not labeled as  selectable and there does not appear to be a way to select delivery frequency.        22.  Plaintiff Olsen was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services Defendant offers to the public on its Website because he encountered multiple  accessibility barriers that visually-impaired people often encounter with non-compliant  websites:  a.  Lack of alt-text for images.   b.  Tables are not properly labeled with row and column headers.   c.  Links use general text like “read more” with no surrounding text  explaining the link purpose.  d.  Frames do not have a title.  e.  Button elements are empty.  -10-  f.  Form controls have no label and no programmatically determined  name.  g.  Forms have fields without label elements or title attributes.  h.  Webpages have duplicate IDs which cause problems in screen  readers.  i.  Webpages have markup errors.  j.  Radio button groups are not contained in a fieldset element.  k.  Headings are not nested correctly and at least twenty (20) headings  are empty.  l.  Several links on a page share the same link text but go to different  destinations.  Defendant Must Remove Barriers to Its Website    23.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Olsen, 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 Olsen encountered have caused a denial of his  full and equal access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the  Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from taking advantage of  Defendant’s online retail services and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals.    24.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Olsen could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items; learn about Defendant’s  products, including sourcing and nutritional information, and complete a purchase, as  sighted individuals can.  -11-   25.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Olsen has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    26.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff Olsen and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the  Website, Plaintiff Olsen 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 Olsen;  b.  Failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff  Olsen; 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 Olsen, as a member of a protected class.   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 Olsen seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   29.  Because its 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 Olsen seeks a permanent injunction under 42  -12-  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Olsen to assist Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for its Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.1 AA compliant;  b.  Training Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   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 Olsen 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  -13-  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   33.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  34.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 offered by Defendant online during the relevant  statutory period (“Class Members”).   35.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 offered by Defendant during the relevant statutory  period (“New York Subclass Members”).   36.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 offered by Defendant during the relevant statutory  period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   37.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members,  New York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members:  -14-  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “commercial marketplace”  effecting interstate commerce;  b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” or a  service or good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA;   c.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities, violating Title III of the ADA; and  e.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   38.  Plaintiff Olsen’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 Olsen will fairly and adequately represent and protect the Class  and Subclasses’ interests because he has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because he 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  -15-  on grounds generally applicable to the Class and Subclasses, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   40.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class and Subclass Members  predominate over questions affecting only individuals, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   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 Olsen, 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 within the definition of  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Defendant’s online retail operations.   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,  -16-  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   46.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,  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).   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 Olsen, 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, he 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.   -17-   49.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Olsen requests the relief as set forth below.  50.  Plaintiff Olsen, 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.  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.”   52.  Defendant’s Website constitutes a sales establishment and public  accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service,  privilege or advantage of Defendant’s online retail operations.   53.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its  Website, which is marketed to and accessible by consumers located in the State of New  York. Defendant is a “person” under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   54.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  with its online retail operations 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.  -18-   55.  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.”   56.  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.”    57.  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  websites 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 its  business nor result in an undue burden to them.   58.  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:  -19-  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.   59.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Olsen 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.   60.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   61.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   62.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   63.  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.  -20-  64.  Plaintiff Olsen, 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.   65.  The NYCHRL 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.” N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-107(4)(a).   66.  Defendant’s Website constitutes a sales establishment and public  accommodation under NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).  Defendant’s Website  is a service that is integrated with its online retail operations.     67.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its online  retail operations and the Website, which is marketed to and accessible by consumers  located in the State.   For these reasons, Defendant is a “person: under N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-102(1).   68.  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.   69.  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.]  -21-  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).   70.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the Subclass because of a disability, violating the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a,) in that it 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.   71.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Olsen 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 online retail  operations 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.   72.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  -22-   73.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines for each offense. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-120(8), 8-126(a).   74.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   75.  Under N.Y.C. Admin. 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.  76.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   77.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Olsen 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  goods, services and facilities of Defendant’s online retail operations and its Website,  which Defendant owns, operates and controls, and that the Website 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.   78.  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.  