15.  Defendant is a seller of electronic cigarette products intended for the  exclusive use by adult smokers. Through its Website, its sells various types of items  relating to electronic cigarettes such as E-liquids, CBDs, Mods, Tanks, various  accessories and starter kits.     17.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy, and practice to deny  Plaintiff Nisbett 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  Nisbett and visually impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to  Defendant’s retail operations and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits  offered to the public through its Website.   18.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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.   22.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Nisbett could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items; learn about items, including  construction; and easily complete a purchase, as sighted individuals can.   23.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Nisbett has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually impaired people.    25.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   26.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Nisbett seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   28.  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.   29.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Nisbett and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   30.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   31.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  32.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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 during the relevant statutory  period (“Class Members”).   34.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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”).   36.  Plaintiff Nisbett’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.   37.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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  on grounds generally applicable to the Class and Subclasses, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   38.  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.   40.   Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf of the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   41.  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).   42.  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 services. The Website is a service that is integrated  with its online retail operation.    43.  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,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   44.  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).   46.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Nisbett, 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.    47.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Nisbett requests the relief as set forth below.  48.  Plaintiff Nisbett, 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.   50.  Defendant’s Website, which is accessible to residents of the State of New  York, 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. Defendant’s Website is a service that is by and integrated with its retail  operations.   51.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its  Website, which is marketed to consumers in the State of New York. Defendant is a  “person” under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   52.  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.   54.  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.”    55.  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.   57.  Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Nisbett 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 and its online retail  operations 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.   58.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Nisbett seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   59.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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.   60.  Plaintiff Nisbett is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   61.  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.  62.  Plaintiff Nisbett, 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.   64.  Defendant’s Website, which offers products available for purchase to  consumers located in New York City is a sales establishment and public accommodation  under NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is  integrated with online retail operations.    65.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  Website, which offers products for sale to consumers located in the City of New York,  making it a person under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   66.  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.   67.  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).   69.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Nisbett 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 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 the New  York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   70.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Nisbett seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   71.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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).   72.  Plaintiff Nisbett is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   74.  Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   75.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Nisbett 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 online retail operations,  which Defendant owns, operates and 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., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et  seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   76.  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 ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  