2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons  to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems and require that any third party vendors who participate on its Website to be fully  accessible to the disabled by conforming with WCAG 2.0 criteria.   28.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.FTC.EDU, to the public.  The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the services which  Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The services offered by  Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, which allow consumers to find  information about: school location and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction,  academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial  aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and  other vital information needed by prospective students in order to make an informed  decision about the Defendant’s school.   30.  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.   31.  Plaintiff, Jason Camacho, attended the NACAC college fair at Javits on  Nov. 5, 2018 in order to obtain information from the college exhibitors presenting and  marketing at the fair including the Defendant’s school.   32.  Soon after attending the Javits fair, Mr. Camacho attempted to access the  Defendant’s website in order to obtain additional information about the Defendant’s school  but was thwarted in his efforts to do so due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant’s website  as set forth herein.   35.  The stated principles of NACAC members include “They strive to   eliminate bias within the educational system based on …disability.”1   36.  By its failure to provide a website that is accessible to the blind or vision   impaired, Defendant, that is a member of NACAC, intentionally violated NACAC’s basic  principles to eliminate bias toward the disabled as well as federal, state and city statutes  and regulations designed to protect those members of society who are in need of protection  by those various laws.   37.  NACAC maintains a business relationship with the New York Daily News   newspaper which publishes full page advertisements for the NACAC college fairs at Javits  and an onsite guide to the exhibitors which is distributed free of charge to attendees at the  college fairs. Exhibitors, such as the Defendant, may participate in the New York Daily  News advertisements and/or advertise in the onsite guide.   39.  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 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 accessing the Website.    40.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s school and enjoying the services offered by the Defendant equal to  sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find information about: school location  and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction, academic calendars, course and  admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial aid, career services,  accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and other vital  information needed by prospective students in order to make an informed decision about  the Defendant’s school. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's school in the near future if he  could access their website.   41.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   42.  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.   44.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   45.  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).   47.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendant’s  school, shop for and otherwise research related services available via the Website such as  curriculum, financial aids, campus tours and other vital information.   48.  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.    50.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  51.  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 services offered in Defendant’s  physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.   52.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  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 services offered in  Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.    53.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 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 Defendant’s Website  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services offered in  Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.    55.  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, RA, NYSHRL and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   56.  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.   58.  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.  59.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   60.  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).   61.  Defendant’s school and it’s exhibits at Javits are public accommodations  within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website  is a service, privilege, or advantage of Defendant’s school. The Website is a service that is  heavily integrated with these locations and is a gateway thereto.   63.  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 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).   64.  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).   66.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  67.  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.   68.  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.”   69.  Defendant’s physical exhibit locations are located in the State of New York  and constitutes a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant. Defendant’s  Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway  thereto.   70.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   72.  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".   73.  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.”   75.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  State Sub-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.   76.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   77.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class 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 and its physical locations  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 State  Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   78.  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.   80.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   81.  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.  82.  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.   83.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   84.  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 . . .”   85.  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.”   87.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   88.  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 services integrated  with Defendant’s physical locations 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.   89.  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 . . .”   90.  Under NY 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 ...”   92.  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.   93.  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.  94.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    95.  29 U.S.C. § 794(a) provides “No otherwise qualified individual with a   disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded  from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any  program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance….”     96.  29 U.S.C. § 794(b) defines “program or activity” as “all operations   of…(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of  education; or (B) a local educational agency…, system of career and technical education,  or other school system.”    97.  Defendant receives Federal financial assistance.   98.  Defendant’s operations, including its website, is a program or activity  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794.    DECLARATORY RELIEF  116.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and City   Sub-Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.  117.  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 goods,  services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical locations, which  Defendant owns, operates and controls and 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.,  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. and The  Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504 et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  118.  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.  Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE REHABILITATION ACT of 1973, §504   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  