CLARK v. INSERT NAME HERE, LLC

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the products in the cart preview window are not announced to screen reader users. Even with the AccessiBe widget activated, the cart items are never announced to the screen reader user. If the user took a certain pathway, the user would be informed of some of the items in the “buy more save 10% carousel.” At no point,
  however, was the user informed of the cart items. 
• The “how to apply” instruction video that the Website offers is not accessible. The video is 1:38 seconds in length and contains instructions, speech, and music, and shows the announcer performing each step. The issue is that captions are not available, nor is an accessible alternative such as a full-text or audio description.
• Defendant’s Website contains a 15% off pop-up that is not announced. A promotional pop-up informs visual users that they can save 15% for each friend that they refer, but this pop-up is not announced when it is displayed. The pop-up must be announced when it is displayed or focus must immediately move into the pop-up, but it does not. As the user navigated
  the website, the user could hear other elements on the page but focus did not move into the popup

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