CHARLAP v. DRMTLGY, LLC

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the cart conformation window is not accessible. A new window is revealed to users when they add an item to the cart, confirming that the item was successfully added. The window also includes a summary of the items in the cart plus other links to continue shopping or check out. Screen reader users do not hear that the item was added to the cart. Instead, focus remains behind the new window and other elements on the page are announced, but the cart confirmation window is not.
• Screen reader users are unable to access some of the icons as they do not receive focus and are not announced. The “search” and “plus” elements are actionable items that are required to be in the ‘Tab Index”, but are not. This prevents users from being able to access these elements with the Tab key. The result is that users will hear other menu items and icons when navigating with the Tab key, but the aforementioned icons will be skipped.
• Defendant’s Website contains product images that do not announce all of the text contained within. Some product descriptions contain embedded text that is not announced. For example, the anti-aging product page shows multiple products with labels such as “As Featured in Elle + Allure” while others have different messages. The issue is that none of this content is announced to screen reader users, so these users do not hear if a product is new or if it was featured on another website.

Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its website was fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
• A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504(a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause them to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 11 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper
• Payment of costs of suit
• Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505, including costs of monitoring Defendant’s compliance with the judgment (see Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
• The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.