Skip to main content
Accessibility.com, LLC

CRUZ v. REA.DEEMING BEAUTY INC.

Filed June 23, 2020

Plaintiff

  • Name: Shael Cruz
  • Filing date: June 23, 2020
  • State of filing: New York

Defendant

  • Name: Rea.Deeming Beauty Inc.
  • Website: www.beautyblender.com
  • Industry: Beauty
  • Summary: Rea.Deeming Beauty Inc. manufactures and sells a line of cosmetics, cleansers, tools, and brushes under the Beauty Blender brand name.

Case Summary

On June 23, 2020, Shael Cruz filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Rea.Deeming Beauty Inc.. Plaintiff Shael Cruz alleges that www.beautyblender.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

Case Details

Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

  • For example, many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the Website to adequately describe its content.
  • Many features on the Website also fail to contain a proper label element or title attribute for each field. This is a problem for the visually impaired because the screen reader fails to communicate the purpose of the page element. It also leads to the user not being able to understand what he or she is expected to insert into the subject field. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Website equally to sighted users.
  • Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements. This was a problem for Plaintiff because in certain instances the screen reader failed to distinguish one page from another. In order to fix this problem, Defendant must change the title elements for each page.
  • The Website also contains a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a nonexistent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered. For example, upon coming across a link of interest, Plaintiff was redirected to an error page. However, the screen-reader failed to communicate that the link was broken. As a result, Plaintiff could not get back to his original search.
  • A pop-up banner on the top of the website page allows for the user to close the banner by clicking on the “X”. The “X” provides for alternate text that lacks a proper description and as such cannot be interpreted by the screen reader and therefore it is not understood by the user. The “X”, at the time of the review had the alternate text of “Button” and not “Exit” or some other relevant term. The screen reader would read “Button” with no other description thus barring the user from any understanding as to what to do with the banner or the “X”.
  • The company logo acts as a link designed to take the user from wherever they may be within the Defendant’s website to the homepage of that site. For this website, the link is not properly labeled and where the link (“logo”) will operate properly (taking the user back to the home page), the missing label prevents the user (visually impaired) to interpret the logo/link and in the case of using a screen reader, the screen reader software cannot properly interpret the logo/link effectively hiding the purpose of that link from the user.
  • When using a keyboard for navigation, the sub-menus, found from the menu options of the Main menu are not properly interpreted by screen readers and are ineffective in either communicating what they contain or provide any information to the user so that they are aware of what is occurring on the website.
  • Products are offered in a variety of colors on the website. The colors are given a name rather than called by the color, for example: black is referred to as “pro”, green is referred to as “glow”, and yellow is referred to as “joy”. This misinformation prevents the user from understanding what colors are available for purchase.

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

  • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 
  • New York City Human Rights Law
  • 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