(Declaratory Relief)  115. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 114 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  116. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that Dyln.co contains  access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services and  facilities of Dyln.co, which Dyln owns, operates and/or controls, fails to comply with applicable  laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§  12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq.  prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  117. 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.  (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.))   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.))   27. Defendant controls and operates Dyln.co. in New York State and throughout  the United States and the world.    28. Dyln.co is a commercial website that offers products and services for online  sale.  The online store allows the user to browse water bottles and accessories, make purchases,  and perform a variety of other functions.   29. Among the features offered by Dyln.co are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Dyln on social media, using  such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to purchase various kinds and sizes of water  bottles and accessories; and  (c) Getting answers to frequently asked questions, learning about shipping and  return policies, learning about the technology of the products, and about the company.   30. This case arises out of Dyln’s policy and practice of denying the blind access  to the goods and services offered by Dyln.co.  Due to Dyln’s failure and refusal to remove access  barriers to Dyln.co, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Dyln, as well  as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through Dyln.co.   31. Dyln denies the blind access to goods, services and information made available  through Dyln.co by preventing them from freely navigating Dyln.co.   33. Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical  image on a website.  Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a  screen-reader can speak the alternative text while sighted users see the picture.  Alt-text does not  change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over  the picture.  There are many important pictures on Dyln.co that lack a text equivalent.  The lack of  alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the  graphics (screen-readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of the image to a blind  computer user).  As a result, Plaintiff and blind Dyln.co customers are unable to determine what  is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make purchases.   34. Dyln.co also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to  allow blind shoppers who use screen-readers to locate and accurately fill-out online forms.  On a  shopping site such as Dyln.co, these forms include search fields to locate bottles, fields that  specify the color and quantity, and fields used to fill-out personal information, including address  and credit card information.  Due to lack of adequate labeling, Plaintiff and blind customers  cannot make purchases or inquiries as to Defendant’s merchandise, nor can they enter their  personal identification and financial information with confidence and security.     36. Similarly, on Dyln.co, blind customers are not aware if the desired products,  such as bottles, have been added to the shopping cart because the screen-reader does not indicate  the type of product.  Moreover, blind customers are unable to select the color of the product they  desire.  Therefore, blind customers are essentially prevented from purchasing any items on  Dyln.co.   37. Furthermore, Dyln.co lacks accessible image maps.  An image map is a  function that combines multiple words and links into one single image.  Visual details on this  single image highlight different “hot spots” which, when clicked on, allow the user to jump to  many different destinations within the website.  For an image map to be accessible, it must  contain alt-text for the various “hot spots.”  The image maps on Dyln.co’s menu page do not  contain adequate alt-text and are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and the other blind individuals  attempting to make a purchase.  When Plaintiff tried to access the menu link in order to make a  purchase, she was unable to access it completely.   39. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Dyln.co even more time consuming and confusing for Plaintiff  and blind consumers.   40. Dyln.co requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.  Yet, it is a  fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be accessible to Plaintiff and blind  people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page using only the keyboard.  Indeed,  Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual activity  of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on the page to another.  Thus, Dyln.co’s  inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff  and blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or make purchases on Dyln.co.   42. Dyln.co thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Dyln.co and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of Dyln.co in New York State and throughout the United  States.   43. Plaintiff, Linda Slade, has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on  Dyln.co, most recently on February 16, 2021, but was unable to do so independently because of  the many access barriers on Defendant’s website.  These access barriers have caused Dyln.co to  be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to purchase a 16 oz. alkaline  DYLN water bottle.   44. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Dyln.co, contains access barriers causing the website to be inaccessible,  and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   45. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Dyln.co.   47. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   48. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,  the goods, benefits and services of Dyln.co, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact  which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of defendant’s conduct.  49. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted  to access Dyln.co and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services  offered by Dyln.co, during the relevant statutory period.”   50. Plaintiff seeks certification of the following New York subclass pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally blind individuals in New  York State who have attempted to access Dyln.co and as a result have been denied access to the  enjoyment of goods and services offered by Dyln.co, during the relevant statutory period.”   51. There are hundreds of thousands of visually-impaired persons in New York  State.  There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States who are visually- impaired. Id.  Thus, the persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is  impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to  the Court.   53. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  (a) Whether Dyln.co is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  (b) Whether Dyln.co is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under the  laws of New York;  (c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Dyln.co, denies the full and equal  enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  (d) Whether Defendant, through its website, Dyln.co, denies the full and equal  enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities in violation of the law of New York.   54. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.  The class,  similar to the Plaintiff, is severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claims Dyln has  violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on  their website, Dyln.co, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who are  legally blind.   56. Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members clearly 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.   57. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of 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.    58. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  59. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   61. Dyln.co is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).     62. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Dyln.co.   63. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of an entity.   64. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of 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.   65. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II),  unlawful discrimination 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.”   67. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their websites accessible, including but not limited  to ensuring adequate prompting and accessible alt-text.  Incorporating the basic components to  make their website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s  business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   68. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Patrons of Dyln who are blind have  been denied full and equal access to Dyln.co, have not been provided services that are provided  to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided services that are inferior to the  services provided to non-disabled patrons.   69. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   70. 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 Dyln.co in violation of Title III of the Americans with  Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   72. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA, and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   73. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   74. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  75. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   76. 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.”.   77. Dyln.co is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     78. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Dyln.co.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. § 292(1).   79. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Dyln.co, causing Dyln.co to be completely inaccessible to the blind.   This inaccessibility denies blind patrons the full and equal access to the facilities, goods and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   81. In addition, 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.”   82. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   84. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   85. 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 Dyln.co under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) et seq. 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.   86. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the New York State  Human Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   87. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   88. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   89. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  91. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   92. 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 . . .”   93. 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.”   94. Dyln.co is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     95. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates Dyln.co.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   96. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Dyln.co, causing Dyln.co 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.   98. In addition, 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 . . .”  