Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case no. 1:23-cv-4484
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`FRANK KUNKLE, on behalf of himself and all
`:
`others similarly situated,
`:
`
`:
` Plaintiffs,
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`
`
`Dilligaf, USA, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff, FRANK KUNKLE (“Plaintiff” or “KUNKLE”), brings this action on behalf of himself
`
`and all other persons similarly situated against Dilligaf, USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Dilligaf, USA” 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 the American
`
`Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in
`
`the State of New York.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 30
`
`4. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Dilligaf, USA 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 Dilligaf, USA
`
`provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.dilligafusa.com (hereinafter
`
`“Dilligafusa.com” or “the website”). Defendant’s 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. Dilligafusa.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other
`
`programs offered by Dilligaf, USA. Yet, Dilligafusa.com contains significant 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, Dilligaf, USA 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 means that blind people are
`
`excluded from experiencing transacting with Defendant’s website and from purchasing goods or
`
`services from Defendant’s website.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 30
`
`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. Dilligaf, USA’s 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 Dilligafusa.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 a hoodie on Dilligafusa.com. He
`
`discovered the Defendant's website on Social media platform when he was looking for a punisher
`
`pullover hoodie. Plaintiff found it difficult to navigate through the website due to accessibility
`
`issues encountered while browsing (landmarks and headings were incorrectly implemented, several
`
`interactive elements were not keyboard focusable, contact information was inaccessible). As a
`
`result, he could not easily reach the Checkout page and complete the purchase process. However,
`
`unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 4 of 30
`
`will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on
`
`Dilligafusa.com.
`
`11. Because Defendant’s website, Dilligafusa.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 Dilligaf, USA’s policies, practices, and procedures to that 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. 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”).
`
`13. Venue is proper in this District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(c) and 144(a)
`
`because 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 because Plaintiff attempted to utilize, on a number of occasions, the subject Website
`
`within this Judicial District.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 5 of 30
`
`14. Defendant is registered to do business in Florida State and has also 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. Because of this targeting, it is not
`
`unusual for Dilligaf, USA 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 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.
`
`PARTIES
`
`15. Plaintiff, is and has been at all relevant times a resident of New York County, State of New York.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 6 of 30
`
`16. 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, FRANK KUNKLE,
`
`cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader software. Plaintiff has been denied
`
`the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Dilligafusa.com as a result of accessibility
`
`barriers on Dilligafusa.com.
`
`17. Defendant, Dilligaf, USA, Inc., is a Florida Corporation doing business in this State with its
`
`principal place of business located at 2404 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, FL 33020.
`
`18. Dilligaf, USA provides to the public a website known as Dilligafusa.com which provides consumers
`
`with access to an array of goods, including, the ability to view t-shirts, hoodies, pants, tops,
`
`swimwear, hats, bags, patches and pins. Consumers across the United States use Defendant’s
`
`website to purchase apparel and accessories. 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 Dilligafusa.com has deterred Plaintiff from making an online purchase
`
`of a hoodie.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`19. 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.
`
`20. 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 7 of 30
`
`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.
`
`21. 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.
`
`22. Blind users of Windows operating system-enabled computers and devices have several screen-
`
`reading software programs available to them. NonVisual Desktop Access, otherwise known as
`
`“NVDA”, is currently one of the most popular, and downloaded screen-reading software programs
`
`available for blind computer users.
`
`23. 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 8 of 30
`
`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
`
`24. Defendant controls and operates Dilligafusa.com in New York State and throughout the United
`
`States.
`
`25. Dilligafusa.com is a commercial website that offers products for online sale. The online store allows
`
`the user to view apparel and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.
`
`26. Among the features offered by Dilligafusa.com are the following:
`
`a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Dilligaf, USA, Inc. on various social
`
`media platforms, including Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube;
`
`b) An online store, allowing customers to purchase t-shirts, hoodies, pants, tops,
`
`swimwear, hats, bags, patches and pins, gift cards and other products for delivery to
`
`their doorsteps;
`
`c) Learning about shipping and return policies and learning about the company, amongst
`
`other features.
`
`27. This case arises out of Dilligaf, USA’s policy and practice of denying the blind access to the goods
`
`and services offered by Dilligafusa.com. Due to Dilligaf, USA’s failure and refusal to remove
`
`access barriers to Dilligafusa.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 9 of 30
`
`to Dilligaf, USA, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public
`
`through Dilligafusa.com.
`
`28. Dilligaf, USA denies the blind access to goods, services and information made available through
`
`Dilligafusa.com by preventing them from freely navigating Dilligafusa.com.
`
`29. Dilligafusa.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: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts,
`
`inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on
`
`graphics, inaccurate drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements,
`
`and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
`
`30. 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 Dilligafusa.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 Dilligafusa.com customers are unable to determine what is on
`
`the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make purchases.
`
`31. Dilligafusa.com also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to allow blind
`
`shoppers who use screen-readers to locate and accurately fill-out online forms. Due to lack of
`
`adequate labeling, Plaintiff and blind customers cannot make purchases or inquiries as to
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 10 of 30
`
`Defendant’s merchandise, nor can they enter their personal identification and financial information
`
`with confidence and security.
`
`32. When visiting the Website, Plaintiff, using NVDA, encountered the following specific accessibility
`
`issues:
`
`a) Plaintiff was disoriented when the automatic Email Subscription pop-up window
`
`appeared on the home page. Plaintiff, as a legally blind user, had a significant difficulty
`
`knowing when automatic visual context change had occurred, such as a new window
`
`popping up;
`
`b) Landmarks were not properly inserted into the home page. Plaintiff could not move
`
`screen reader software focus directly to “main” and “content info” regions of the page
`
`using landmarks;
`
`c) Heading hierarchy on the home page was not properly defined, and there was missing
`
`heading level 1. Legally blind users tend to find specific content based on the logical
`
`organization of the page. Heading level 1 can provide important indication of what the
`
`page is about and outline its content;
`
`d) Plaintiff was not aware of the search suggestions after search term was entered into the
`
`Search bar. The status update, such as a brief text message about search suggestions,
`
`was not provided even though the content of the page was updated and search
`
`suggestions were displayed. Without appropriate status message legally blind users do
`
`not know that search suggestions appeared on the screen;
`
`e) The Navigation menu had elements with drop-down menu, and they did not announce
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 11 of 30
`
`their state - “collapsed” or “expanded”. As a result, Plaintiff had difficulty in navigating
`
`the menu and could not determine in which part of the sub-menu the keyboard focus
`
`was located;
`
`f) Navigation menu did not allow the repeated content to be expanded or collapsed, and
`
`the sub-menu elements expanded automatically after receiving focus, forcing Plaintiff
`
`to navigate through all the drop-down links;
`
`g) On the home page, Plaintiff encountered links (previous/next slide buttons) that did not
`
`describe their purpose. There were no details what function they performed;
`
`h) Interactive elements on the home page (previous/next slide buttons) that behaved as
`
`"buttons" were not programmatically written correctly. Instead of using a "role"
`
`attribute, they were built by tag <a>. As a result, the screen reader software read the
`
`incorrectly constructed element and Plaintiff was confused, because of receiving
`
`ambiguous information about the element in focus;
`
`i) On the home page Social media icons were used as links without appropriate alternative
`
`text. Plaintiff was not informed about the purpose of the graphic icons;
`
`j) Links led to another website, and they did not indicate that they were external. Plaintiff
`
`found himself disoriented on another website. The link text failed to warn legally blind
`
`customers about the significant change of the context;
`
`k) The telephone number on the home page was presented in plain text, and therefore was
`
`non-interactive and inaccessible to the screen reader software. As a result, Plaintiff was
`
`unable to contact the customer support to clarify details about products or purchase
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 12 of 30
`
`procedure;
`
`l) The Category page was reloaded after Plaintiff tried to filter items on it and the
`
`keyboard focus moved to the top of the page. As a result, Plaintiff was confused by the
`
`change of context;
`
`m) On the Category page several links (pagination links) had ambiguous texts that were
`
`unclear to Plaintiff. Lack of detailed description of the link target and destination page
`
`made it difficult for Plaintiff to perceive the purpose of the link;
`
`n) On the Product detail page different images of the same product had similar alternative
`
`text. The similar description impeded Plaintiff from learning more detailed information
`
`about the product;
`
`o) Interactive elements (size selectors and decrease/ increase quantity buttons) could not
`
`be focused with the Tab key. The website did not provide helpful instructions on how
`
`to access the interactive element using arrow keys. Plaintiff did not know about the
`
`interactive element from the Product detail page.
`
`Consequently, blind customers are essentially prevented from purchasing any items on
`
`Dilligafusa.com.
`
`33. Dilligafusa.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, Dilligafusa.com’s inaccessible design,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 13 of 30
`
`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 Dilligafusa.com.
`
`34. Due to Dilligafusa.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 Dilligafusa.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 1.3.1 “Info and Relationship”, headings communicate the organization of the content on
`
`the page. Web browsers, plug-ins, and assistive technologies can use them to provide in-page
`
`navigation. To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure, authors
`
`should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., <h1> followed by h2, <h2> followed by <h2>
`
`or <h3>, <h3> followed by <h3> or <h4>, etc.). Defendant's failure to provide accurate type of
`
`structure did not help Plaintiff to understand the overall organization of the content. Thus, Dilligaf,
`
`USA has inaccessible design that deprives the Plaintiff and blind customers of the opportunity to
`
`make purchases on Dilligafusa.com on their own.
`
`35. Dilligafusa.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal access to Plaintiff, who
`
`would otherwise use Dilligafusa.com and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy
`
`the benefits and services of Dilligafusa.com in New York State and throughout the United States.
`
`36. Plaintiff, FRANK KUNKLE, has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
`
`Dilligafusa.com, most recently on April 27, 2023, but was unable to do so independently because
`
`of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website. These access barriers have caused
`
`Dilligafusa.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 14 of 30
`
`persons. Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to make an online
`
`purchase of a hoodie.
`
`37. Moreover, Plaintiff intends on visiting the Website in the future in order to make additional
`
`potential purchases of a t-shirt and other products from Dilligafusa.com. Plaintiff enjoys the various
`
`selections of apparel and accessories, and would like to order products to be shipped directly to his
`
`home from Defendant’s website.
`
`38. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that Defendant’s website,
`
`Dilligafusa.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be inaccessible, and not
`
`independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.
`
`39. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods,
`
`benefits and services of Dilligafusa.com.
`
`40. 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
`
`(c) failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial harm and
`
`discrimination to blind class members.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 15 of 30
`
`41. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of
`
`discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.
`
`42. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits
`
`and services of Dilligafusa.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
`
`43. 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 Dilligafusa.com and as
`
`a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Dilligafusa.com,
`
`during the relevant statutory period.”
`
`44. 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 Dilligafusa.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of
`
`goods and services offered by Dilligafusa.com, during the relevant statutory period.”
`
`45. 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.
`
`46. 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 Dilligafusa.com. Due to Defendant’s
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 16 of 30
`
`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 Dilligafusa.com.
`
`47. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including without limitation, the
`
`following:
`
`(a) Whether Dilligafusa.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;
`
`(b) Whether Dilligafusa.com is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under the
`
`laws of New York;
`
`(c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Dilligafusa.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, Dilligafusa.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.
`
`48. 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 Dilligaf, USA has violated the ADA,
`
`and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on their website,
`
`Dilligafusa.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who are legally blind.
`
`49. 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 to the members of the
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 17 of 30
`
`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.
`
`50. 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.
`
`51. 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.
`
`52. 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)
`
`53. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 56 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.
`
`54. 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 criteria or methods
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-04484-ALC-SLC Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 18 of 30
`
`of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).
`
`55. Dilligafusa.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the definition of 42
`
`U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).
`
`56. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates Dilligafusa.com.
`
`57. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I), it is unlawful discrimination to deny
`
`individu