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