 (Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   20.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in the United States who have  attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of  goods and services offered by the Website during the relevant statutory period.”    21.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Massachusetts subclass pursuant to  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally deaf and hard-of-hearing  individuals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who have attempted to access the Website  and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by the  Website, during the relevant statutory period.”    23.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying deaf and hard-of-hearing persons access to the goods and services  of the Website. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, deaf  and hard-of-hearing persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to  independently browse and watch videos on the Website.    24.  There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:   (a) Whether the Website is a “public accommodation” under the ADA; and  (b) Whether Defendant through the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with hearing disabilities in violation of the ADA.   25.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the Class. The Class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are deaf or hard of hearing, and claim that Defendant has violated the  ADA by failing to update or remove access barriers on the Website, so that it could be  independently accessible to the Class of people who are legally deaf or hard-of-hearing.    27.  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.    28.  Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action  in that it will avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the  filing of numerous similar suits by people with hearing disabilities throughout the United States.    29.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the Class, unless otherwise indicated.   30.  Defendant operates the Website, which provides videos, information, and  tutorials on a variety of topics related to fine jewelry.  It delivers jewelry to people and  businesses across the United States.    31.  Defendant operates the Jewelers Company, a luxury jewelry and timepiece  market with 5 locations across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and New Hampshire area  that are accessible to the public.   32.  The Website is a service and benefit offered by Defendant throughout the United  States. The Website is owned, controlled and/or operated by Defendant.   34.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of denying the deaf and  hard-of-hearing access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant  through the Website. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the  Website, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals have been and are being denied equal access to  the Website, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public  through the Website.   35.  Defendant denies the deaf and hard-of-hearing access to goods, services, and  information made available through the Website by preventing them from freely enjoying,  interpreting, and understanding the content on the Website.   36.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting  business and for doing everyday activities such as reading news, watching videos, etc., for deaf  and hard-of-hearing persons.   37.  The deaf and hard-of-hearing access videos through closed captioning, which is  a transcription or translation of the audio portion of a video as it occurs, sometimes including  descriptions of non-speech elements. Except for a deaf or hard-of-hearing person whose  residual hearing is still sufficient to apprehend the audio portion of the video, closed captioning  provides the only method by which a deaf or hard-of-hearing person can independently access  the video. Unless websites are designed to allow for use in this manner, deaf and hard-of- hearing persons are unable to fully access the service provided through the videos on the  Website.   39.  The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff  and other deaf or hard-of-hearing people, including but not limited to the lack of closed  captioning. This barrier is in violation of WCAG 2.1 Guideline 1.2.2, which mandates that  video content contain captioning.    40.  Due to the Website’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and Class members cannot access  the audio portion of the videos offered by Defendant. Some deaf and hard-of-hearing  individuals may require an interpreter to apprehend the audio portion of the video or require  assistance from their friends or family. By contrast, if the Website was accessible, a deaf or  hard-of-hearing person could independently watch the videos and enjoy the services provided  by Defendant as hearing individuals can and do.   41.  The Website thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website.   43.  As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that the Website  contains access barriers causing the Website to be inaccessible, and not independently usable  by, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.   44.  These access barriers have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits, and services of Defendant and the Website.   46.  Defendant utilizes standards, criteria, and methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  47.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.    48.  Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a),  provides that “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.” Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or  criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of  disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).    49.  Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as defined by Title III of  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) (“place of exhibition and entertainment,” “place of recreation,” and  “service establishments”).    51.  Discrimination under Title III includes the denial of an opportunity for the person  who is deaf or hard-of-hearing to participate in programs or services, or providing a service that  is not as effective as what is provided to others. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I-III).    52.  Discrimination specifically includes the failure to provide “effective  communication” to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals through auxiliary aids and services,  such as captioning, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(III); 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(C).   53.  Discrimination also includes the failure to maintain accessible features of  facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with  disability. 28 C.F.R §36.211.   54.  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.    55.  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.    57.  In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful  discrimination also includes, among other things, “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.”    58.  The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §  12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Individuals who are deaf and hard-of- hearing have been denied full and equal access to the Website, 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.    59.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    60.  Modifying its policies, practices, and services by providing closed captions to  make its videos accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals would not fundamentally alter  the nature of Defendant’s business, nor would it pose an undue burden to this flourishing  company.    62.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful  practices, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class and Subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.    63.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.    64.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.    65.  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.   66.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if  set forth fully herein.   67.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that the Website  contains access barriers denying deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals the full and equal access  to the goods and services of the Website, which Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls,  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. prohibiting discrimination against the deaf and  hard-of-hearing.  