throbber
Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1
`
`SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
`Dan Shaked (DS-3331)
`14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
`Scarsdale, NY 10583
`Tel. (917) 373-9128
`Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-----------------------------------------------------------X
`ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, Individually and as the
`representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`- against -
`
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`-----------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-4218
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff, Angel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff” or “Rodriguez”), brings this action on
`
`
`
`behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated against Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Impossible Foods” or “Defendant”), and states as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-
`
`reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms “blind” or
`
`“visually-impaired” to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of
`
`blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
`
`blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision.
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people
`
`in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2
`
`the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired
`
`persons live in the State of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Impossible Foods for their failure
`
`to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
`
`usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant is denying blind and
`
`visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services
`
`Impossible
`
`Foods
`
`provides
`
`to
`
`their
`
`non-disabled
`
`customers
`
`through
`
`http//:www.Impossiblefoods.com
`
`(hereinafter “Impossiblefoods.com” or “the website”).
`
`Defendants’ denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
`
`services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Impossiblefoods.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services,
`
`price specials, employment opportunities and other programs offered by Impossible Foods. Yet,
`
`Impossiblefoods.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible
`
`for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
`
`impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website.
`
`Thus, Impossible Foods excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal
`
`participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the
`
`common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years,
`
`assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life,
`
`allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of
`
`services.
`
`
`
`
`
`6. The blind have an even greater need than the sighted to shop and conduct
`
`transactions online due to the challenges faced in mobility. The lack of an accessible website
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3
`
`means that blind people are excluded from experiencing transacting with defendant’s website and
`
`from purchasing goods or services from defendant’s website.
`
`
`
`
`
`7. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at
`
`other heavily trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms,
`
`descriptive links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and JavaScript, Defendant has chosen
`
`to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Impossible Foods’ sighted customers can independently
`
`browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely
`
`on sighted companions to assist them in accessing and purchasing on Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`8. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating
`
`basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law.
`
`
`
`
`
`9. Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of
`
`discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination
`
`includes barriers to full integration, independent living, and equal opportunity for persons with
`
`disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are
`
`inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Similarly, New York state law requires places
`
`of public accommodation to ensure access to goods, services, and facilities by making reasonable
`
`accommodations for persons with disabilities.
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of the Impossible
`
`Combo Pack on Impossiblefoods.com. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous access
`
`barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently
`
`navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Because Defendant’s website, Impossiblefoods.com, is not equally accessible
`
`to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
`
`injunction to cause a change in Impossible Foods’ policies, practices, and procedures so that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4
`
`Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
`
`This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
`
`subjected to unlawful discrimination.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`
`
`12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12181, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12181 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because this is a class action, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(d)(1)(B), in which a member of the putative class is a citizen of a different state than
`
`Defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, excluding
`
`interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 133(d)(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`13. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1367, over Plaintiff’s pendent claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec.
`
`Law, Article 15 (Executive Law § 290 et seq.) and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C.
`
`Administrative Code § 8-101 et seq. (“City Law”).
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Venue is proper in this District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-
`
`(c) and 144(a) because Plaintiff resides in this District, Defendant conducts and continues to
`
`conduct a substantial and significant amount of business in this District, and a substantial portion
`
`of the conduct complained of herein occurred in this District.
`
`
`
`
`
`15. Defendant is registered to do business in New York State and has been
`
`conducting business in New York State, including in this District. Defendant purposefully targets
`
`and otherwise solicits business from New York State residents through its website and sells its
`
`products through many retailers in this District. Because of this targeting, it is not unusual for
`
`Impossible Foods to conduct business with New York State residents. Defendant also has been
`
`and is committing the acts alleged herein in this District and has been and is violating the rights of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5
`
`consumers in this District and has been and is causing injury to consumers in this District. A
`
`substantial part of the act and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims have occurred in this
`
`District. Most courts support the placement of venue in the district in which Plaintiff tried and
`
`failed to access the Website. In Access Now, Inc. v. Otter Products, LLC 280 F.Supp.3d 287 (D.
`
`Mass. 2017), Judge Patti B. Saris ruled that “although the website may have been created and
`
`operated outside of the district, the attempts to access the website in Massachusetts are part of the
`
`sequence of events underlying the claim. Therefore, venue is proper in [the District of
`
`Massachusetts].” Otter Prods., 280 F.Supp.3d at 294. This satisfies Due Process because the harm
`
`– the barred access to the website – occurred here.” Otter Prods., 280 F.Supp.3d at 293.
`
`Additionally, in Access Now, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc., No. 17-cv-11211-NMG, 2018 Dist. LEXIS
`
`47318 (D. Mass. Mar. 22, 2018), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton stated that the defendant “availed
`
`itself of the forum state’s economic activities by targeting the residents of the Commonwealth . . .
`
`. Such targeting evinces a voluntary attempt to appeal to the customer base in the forum.”
`
`Sportswear, No. 1:17-cv-11211-NMG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47318 at *11. Thus, establishing
`
`a customer base in a particular district is sufficient cause for venue placement. Specifically,
`
`Plaintiff attempted to the Impossible Combo Pack on Defendant’s website, Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`PARTIES
`
`16. Plaintiff, is and has been at all relevant times a resident of Queens County,
`
`State of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 12102(l)-(2), the regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et
`
`seq., the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
`
`Plaintiff, Angel Rodriguez, cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6
`
`software. Plaintiff, Angel Rodriguez, has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods
`
`and services of Impossiblefoods.com as a result of accessibility barriers on Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`18. Defendant, The Impossible Foods Inc., is a Delaware Foreign Business
`
`Corporation doing business in New York with its principal place of business located at 400
`
`Saginaw Drive, Redwood City, CA 94063.
`
`
`
`
`
`19. Impossible Foods provides to the public a website known as
`
`Impossiblefoods.com which provides consumers with access to an array of collectible goods,
`
`including, the ability to view the various lines of plant-based meat products among other
`
`products, and make purchases among other features. Consumers across the United States use
`
`Defendant’s website to purchase plant-based meat products. Defendant’s website is a place of
`
`public accommodation within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). See
`
`Victor Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, No. 17-cv-767, 2017 WL 3278898 (E.D.N.Y.
`
`August 1, 2017). The inaccessibility of Impossiblefoods.com has deterred Plaintiff from buying
`
`the Impossible Combo Pack.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`20. The Internet has become a significant source of information, a portal, and a tool
`
`for conducting business, doing everyday activities such as shopping, learning, banking,
`
`researching, as well as many other activities for sighted, blind and visually-impaired persons alike.
`
`
`
`
`
`21. The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-
`
`reading software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Except for a blind
`
`person whose residual vision is still sufficient to use magnification, screen access software
`
`provides the only method by which a blind person can independently access the Internet. Unless
`
`websites are designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons are unable to fully access
`
`Internet websites and the information, products and services contained therein.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`
`
`22. For screen-reading software to function, the information on a website must be
`
`capable of being rendered into text. If the website content is not capable of being rendered into
`
`text, the blind user is unable to access the same content available to sighted users.
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Blind users of Windows operating system-enabled computers and devises have
`
`several screen-reading software programs available to them. Job Access With Speech, otherwise
`
`known as “JAWS” is currently the most popular, separately purchase and downloaded screen-
`
`reading software program available for blind computer users.
`
`
`
`
`
`24. The international website standards organization, the World Wide Web
`
`Consortium, known throughout the world as W3C, has published version 2.1 of the Web Content
`
`Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG 2.1”). WCAG 2.1 are well-established guidelines for making
`
`websites accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons. These guidelines are universally
`
`followed by most large business entities and government agencies to ensure their websites are
`
`accessible. Many Courts have also established WCAG 2.1 as the standard guideline for
`
`accessibility. The federal government has also promulgated website accessibility standards under
`
`Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines are readily available via the Internet, so
`
`that a business designing a website can easily access them. These guidelines recommend several
`
`basic components for making websites accessible, including but not limited to: adding invisible
`
`alt-text to graphics, ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard and not just a
`
`mouse, ensuring that image maps are accessible, and adding headings so that blind persons can
`
`easily navigate the site. Without these very basic components, a website will be inaccessible to a
`
`blind person using a screen reader. Websites need to be accessible to the “least sophisticated” user
`
`of screen-reading software and need to be able to work with all browsers. Websites need to be
`
`continually updated and maintained to ensure that they remain fully accessible.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`
`
`25. Defendant, The
`
`Impossible Foods
`
`Inc.,
`
`controls
`
`and operates
`
`Impossiblefoods.com. in New York State and throughout the United States.
`
`26. Impossiblefoods.com is a commercial website that offers products for online
`
`sale. The online store allows the user to browse plant-based meat products, and other related
`
`products, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Among the features offered by Impossiblefoods.com are the following:
`
`(a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Impossible Foods on social
`
`media, using such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) an online store, allowing customers to purchase plant-based meat products, and
`
`other related products for delivery; and
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) learning about the products, read review, learning how to cook, and about the
`
`company and its history.
`
`
`
`
`
`28. This case arises out of Impossible Foods’ policy and practice of denying the
`
`blind access to the goods and services offered by Impossiblefoods.com. Due to Impossible Foods’
`
`failure and refusal to remove access barriers to Impossiblefoods.com, blind individuals have been
`
`and are being denied equal access to Impossible Foods, as well as to the numerous goods, services
`
`and benefits offered to the public through Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Impossible Foods denies the blind access to goods, services and information
`
`made available through Impossiblefoods.com by preventing them from freely navigating
`
`Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Impossiblefoods.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by
`
`Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are
`
`pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
`
`menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9
`
`keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
`
`same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
`
`
`
`
`
`31. 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 Impossiblefoods.com 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 Impossiblefoods.com
`
`customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or
`
`make purchases.
`
`
`
`
`
`32. Impossiblefoods.com 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 Impossiblefoods.com, these forms include search fields to
`
`find products, fields to select 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`33. On Impossiblefoods.com, Plaintiff and the class of blind customers are not
`
`able to complete a transaction. Plaintiff was not able to access the Ask Us Anything link and
`
`was not able to checkout when using a screen-reader. Specifically, the Plaintiff experienced the
`
`following problems when attempting to make a purchase on the Website:
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10
`
`Plaintiff could not checkout due to the reCAPTCHA question which is detailed below. The Ask Us
`Anything link is announced but it doesn’t have an accessible label. The website author
`mistakenly placed the destination URL into the AIRA label so users hear the URL of the page
`that this link points to instead of “Ask Us Anything.”
`
`
`Specific Inaccessibility Issues
`
` The Ask Us link has the following label: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us
` The Plaintiff was were able to add multiple Impossible meat products to the cart.
` The “I’m not a robot” is for a reCAPTCHA question on the first page of the cart checkout
`page but this has two issues:
`o Users can hear the checkbox and “I’m not a robot” but screen reader users hear
`“unavailable” after they check it. Sighted people could see a green checkbox
`displayed onscreen when they checked it but that wasn’t announced. Plaintiff
`just heard unavailable so the announcement makes it appear something isn’t
`working
`o After a minute or so, the checkbox unchecks itself and doesn’t notify users. They
`will have to navigate backwards, learn that the checkbox unchecked itself, and
`then know to check it again before moving forward
`
`Consequently, Plaintiff was essentially prevented from completing a transaction on the Website.
`
`
`
`
`
`34. Furthermore, Impossiblefoods.com 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 Impossiblefoods.com’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, he was unable to access it completely.
`
`
`
`
`
`35. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to locate the shopping cart because the
`
`shopping cart form does not specify the purpose of the shopping cart. As a result, blind
`
`customers are denied access to the shopping cart. Consequently, Plaintiff was unsuccessful in
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 11
`
`adding products into his shopping cart and are essentially prevented from purchasing items on
`
`Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`36. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes
`
`attempting to navigate through Impossiblefoods.com even more time consuming and confusing
`
`for Plaintiff and blind consumers.
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Impossiblefoods.com 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, Impossiblefoods.com’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 Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`38. Due to Impossiblefoods.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers
`
`must in turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and-
`
`mortar retailers. Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the stores or require
`
`assistance in navigating the stores. By contrast, if Impossiblefoods.com was accessible, a blind
`
`person could independently investigate products and make purchases via the Internet as sighted
`
`individuals can and do. According to WCAG 2.1 Guideline 2.4.1, a mechanism is necessary to
`
`bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple webpages because requiring users to
`
`extensively tab before reaching the main content is an unacceptable barrier to accessing the
`
`website. Plaintiff must tab through every navigation bar option and footer on Defendant’s
`
`website in an attempt to reach the desired service. Thus, Impossiblefoods.com’s inaccessible
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 12
`
`design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind
`
`customers the ability to independently make purchases on Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`39. Impossiblefoods.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and
`
`equal access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Impossiblefoods.com and who would
`
`otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Impossiblefoods.com in
`
`New York State and throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`
`
`40. Plaintiff, Angel Rodriguez, has made numerous attempts to complete a
`
`purchase on Impossiblefoods.com, most recently on September 2, 2020, but was unable to do so
`
`independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website. These access
`
`barriers have caused Impossiblefoods.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable
`
`by, blind and visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff
`
`was unable to purchase the Impossible Combo Pack.
`
`
`
`
`
`41. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that
`
`Defendant’s website, Impossiblefoods.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be
`
`inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.
`
`
`
`
`
`42. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and
`
`enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`43. Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not
`
`limited to the following policies or practices:
`
`
`
`
`
`(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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial
`
`harm and discrimination to blind class members.
`
`
`
`
`
`44. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have
`
`the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.
`
`
`
`
`
`45. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,
`
`the goods, benefits and services of Impossiblefoods.com, 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.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`46. 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 blind individuals in the United States who have attempted
`
`to access Impossiblefoods.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of
`
`goods and services offered by Impossiblefoods.com, during the relevant statutory period.”
`
`
`
`
`
`47. 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 Impossiblefoods.com and as a result have been denied
`
`access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Impossiblefoods.com, during the
`
`relevant statutory period.”
`
`
`
`
`
`48. 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.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 14
`
`49. This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an
`
`inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of
`
`Impossiblefoods.com. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access
`
`barriers, blind persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to independently
`
`browse, select and shop on Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`50. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including
`
`without limitation, the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Whether Impossiblefoods.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;
`
`(b) Whether Impossiblefoods.com is a “place or provider of public
`
`accommodation” under the laws of New York;
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Impossiblefoods.com, 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, Impossiblefoods.com, 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`51. 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 Impossible
`
`Foods has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access
`
`barriers on their website, Impossiblefoods.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class
`
`of people who are legally blind.
`
`
`
`
`
`52. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`members of the Class because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and
`
`experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 15
`
`to the members of the class. Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`53. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`54. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`55. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and
`
`each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)
`
`56. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`
`
`
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`57. Title III of the American 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
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 16
`
`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).
`
`
`
`
`
`58. Impossiblefoods.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation
`
`within the definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).
`
`
`
`
`
`59. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates
`
`Impossiblefoods.com.
`
`60. 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.
`
`61. 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 i

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket