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.   21.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.JENNYCRAIG.COM, to  the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The  goods and services offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following,  which allow consumers to: find information about weight loss centers and hours of  operation, the weight management food and counseling and related services and their  prices, the ability to make reservations, gift cards and privacy policies.   22.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s website,  and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and are heavily  integrated with Defendant’s weight loss centers. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to  remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been  and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s weight loss centers and the numerous  goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   23.  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.   26.  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, goods, 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.    27.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical weight loss centers locations, and enjoying them equal to  sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation  of Defendant’s physical weight loss centers and other important information on its Website,  preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations to purchase items or services, make  reservations and to view the items. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's weight loss centers  in the near future if she could access their website.   29.  Through her 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.   30.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide  Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, Plaintiff  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;  b.  Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;  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, as a member of a protected class.   31.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   33.  Because Defendant’s 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 invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendant to comply with  WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Defendant’s Website. The Website must be accessible for  individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets and smart phones. Plaintiff  seeks that this permanent injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the Agreed Upon  Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the Website  on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  b.  Regularly check the accessibility of the Website under the WCAG   35.  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.    36.  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.   37.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  38.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 offered in  Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   39.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 goods and services  offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    41.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  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 ADA; and  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 the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   42.  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, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers  on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   44.  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.   45.  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.  46.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   47.  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).   49.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of  an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   50.  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).   51.  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).   53.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  54.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   55.  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.”   56.  Defendant’s physical locations are located in State of New York and  throughout the United States and 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. Defendant’s Website is a service that is  heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway thereto.   58.  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  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.   59.  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".   60.  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.”   62.  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.   63.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   64.  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.   66.  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.   67.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   68.  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.  69.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   70.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   71.  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 . . .”   73.  Defendant’s New York State physical locations are sales establishments and  public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its Website is a  service that is heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   74.  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).   75.  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.   76.  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 . . .”   78.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   79.  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.   80.  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.  81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   82.  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.”   84.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical  locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the meaning  of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   85.  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 its 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.   86.  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).   88.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  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 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 its Website and its establishments  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.   90.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   91.  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(a).   92.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   93.  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.  95.  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., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting  discrimination against the blind.   96.  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   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  