Skip to main content
Accessibility.com, LLC

ROMERO v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY

Filed November 3, 2020

Plaintiff

  • Name: Josue Romero
  • Filing date: November 3, 2020
  • State of filing: New York

Defendant

  • Name: Colgate-Palmolive Company
  • Website: hum.colgate.com
  • Industry: Beauty
  • Summary: Colgate-Palmolive is a multinational conglomerate selling a wide array of personal care, beauty, cleaning, and other products, including, at issue here, their Hum smart-electric-toothbrushes.

Case Summary

On November 3, 2020, Josue Romero filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Colgate-Palmolive Company. Plaintiff Josue Romero alleges that hum.colgate.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

Case Details

Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

  • Lack of Alternative Text (“alt-text”), or a text equivalent. Alt-text is an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts. Alt- text does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the cursor moves over the picture. The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics
  • Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen- reader users;
  • Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and
  • Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information contained in PDFs.
  • Site element like product color is not fully accessible. The first color is read however, the remaining colors are not labeled to integrate with a screen reader and thus bars the user from choosing the product color of their choice to purchase.
  • Site element like multiple payment options is not labeled properly. When navigating with a keyboard only the first payment option is accessible to the user.

Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:

  • VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq
  • VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL
  • VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
  • VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL
  • DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

  • A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York;
  • A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that the Website is readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals;
  • A declaration that Defendant owns, maintains and/or operates its
    Website in a manner that discriminates against the blind and which fails to provide access for persons with disabilities as required by Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York
  • An order certifying the Class and Sub-Classes under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel;
  • Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, to Plaintiff and the proposed class and subclasses for violations of their civil rights under New York City Human Rights Law and City Law;
  • Pre- and post-judgment interest;
  • An award of costs and expenses of this action together with
    reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees; and
  • Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper

New YorkBeauty