KOLESAR v. DRIPDROP HYDRATION, INC.

• The Website prevents screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing some primary content directly. For example, the website contains pictures that give important information regarding its products. When hovering over this image the screen reader is unable to read the text or describe the nature of the picture. Sighted shoppers are able to read and learn about the nutritional information of the products offered unlike shoppers who are not partially sighted, visually impaired, or totally blind.
• The Website provides a five-star rating for many
  products that Defendant sells. Shoppers who perceive content visually can
  see whether a particular product has one, two, three, four, or five stars, and
  base their purchasing decisions on this information. Unfortunately,
  Defendant’s accessibility policies, if any, fail to provide any alternative
  text for this important rating information. When the user hovers over the
  review rating, it will read the number of reviews only, not the star rating.
  As a result, Plaintiffs must make their purchasing decisions without the
  benefit of knowing whether the products they are researching are well received by other shoppers, information which is otherwise available to shoppers who do not rely on screen reader auxiliary aids to shop online.
• The Website prevents screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing some primary content directly. For example, upon visiting the Website for the first time, Defendant presents a pop-up window to shoppers, inviting them to take “Save 15% On Today’s Order”. Unfortunately, when the screen reader is active the image and text is not accurately described. The screen reader only reads “web dialogue image” As a result, Plaintiffs did not receive notice of this sales promotion, causing them to miss out on limited deals unlike shoppers who are not partially sighted, visually impaired, or totally blind.

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

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the start of this action Defendant was in violation 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 is 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 it 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 other 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 People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendants have complied with the Court’s Orders