CLARK v. PANGEA NATURALS, INC.

• Defendant’s Website contains a customer review section that is not labeled. The products shown are missing labels for the Customer Review section and on the individual product pages. For example, the “facial cream dry & sensitive skin” shows a 4.5 customer rating with 36 reviews. Users should be able to click on this link to read more about the rating, however, screen reader users only hear the word “blank” announced for this section. Screen reader users will hear the product name, “blank”, and then the price.
• The “skip to content” function is announced to screen reader users and shown on the screen, however, it is not operable. The purpose of the skip functionality is to allow users to bypass repeated information. This enables screen reader users to save time by jumping directly to the page content instead of manually tabbing through all of the header and menu content for each new page. The issue with this functionality is that it takes users to the first element on the page, which is incorrect. Users do not go to the content, instead, they hear the same starting point, “Pangea” as all other users, so they must still tab through all of the header information. Screen reader users actually have to navigate past more items with the accessibility widget since they also hear all of the widget functionality repeated for each page.
• Defendant’s Website contains a cart page that has broken elements. The top of the cart page has a broken slideshow which is the first content the user hears on that page. After users navigate past the menu items, they hear “translation missing colon pause end slideshow” and with the next keypress they hear an unlabeled element which is announced as “clickable.”

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