CLARK v. HIVE ENDEAVORS, LLC

•  Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the “add to cart” button is not accessible via the tab key as required. Screen reader users will not hear the button when they are navigating this webpage. Instead, focus jumps from the unlabeled, customer review section to the video below the “add to cart” button.
• The quantity and customer review sections are not labeled. When a user navigates to the customer review field, the user will hear “left paren 980 right paren,” so it is unclear which link the user is on or what action they are to perform. The quantity dropdown is not labeled either. Screen reader users hear “1 dash pack” for example. This is the hint text shown in the dropdown, but a label for the field is not announced.
• Defendant’s Website contains operating instructions that are not accessible. A three-step carousel shows users how to unbox and use the vape pen, but the images are not labeled. Screen reader users do not hear the content in the images, do not hear the labels for the images, and do not hear the controls to move between the images.

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 Plaintiff 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