MURPHY v. KOODING, INC.

• Links and buttons on the Digital Platform do not describe their purpose. As a result, consumers who have a visual impairment cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, consumers who perceive content visually will likely recognize the Digital Platform’s shopping cart icon and understand that by clicking it, Defendant will redirect them to its online checkout platform. Unfortunately, this icon is not labeled with sufficiently descriptive alternative text. As a result, when screen readers hover over it, Defendant announces “link end banner,” only. Because this text is meaningless without visually perceiving the context in which it appears, Plaintiff is unlikely (or unable) to locate the payment platform and complete a purchase successfully. Click the picture contained in this paragraph or following link to view a short video describing this access barrier: https://youtu.be/UG0Gp_R8M2A.
• The Digital Platform prevents screen reader users from accessing primary content. For example, the Digital Platform provides a size guide or chart that consumers may review to determine what size apparel to purchase. Size guides are particularly important to consumers who shop online because they lack the opportunity to try on products, like the apparel that Defendant sells, before purchasing.
  Unfortunately, the Digital Platform prevents screen readers from tabbing to these size guides.
  Instead, screen readers remain focused on the content of the Digital Platform’s underlying
  pages. As a result, screen reader users, including Plaintiff, are unable to access the sizing information they require to confidently purchase products that will fit, making it likely they abandon the online shopping experience before making a purchase. Click the picture contained in this paragraph or following link to view a short video describing this access barrier: https://youtu.be/R38E67Sy4eE.
• The Digital Platform fails to describe the purpose of links and buttons sufficiently. As a result, screen reader users have difficulty understanding what information is contained on pages and how that information is organized. When link and button labels are clear and descriptive, screen reader users can find information they seek more easily and they can understand the relationships between different pieces of content. For example, the social media links on the Digital Platform lack alternative text describing their purpose. Consumers who perceive content visually will likely recognize the Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Pinterest icons in the Digital Platform’s footer, and understand that by clicking these icons, Defendant will redirect them to its different social media communities. Unfortunately, these links are not labeled with sufficiently descriptive alternative text. When screen readers tab to these icons, Defendant announces “link,” only. Because this audio alternative is difficult to understand without perceiving the context in which it appears, screen reader users, like Plaintiff, are likely to skip over the icons without discovering Defendant’s online community and the members in it. This access barrier contributes to the very sense of isolation and stigma the ADA was intended to eliminate. Click the picture contained in this paragraph or following link to view a short video describing this access barrier: https://youtu.be/Di55Jb837Yk.
• The Digital Platform prevents screen reader users from accessing some primary content. For example, when consumers visit the Digital Platform from a new IP address, Defendant displays a pop-up window offering them “10% off your first order[.]” Shoppers who perceive content visually can click the “Get 10% off” button to claim the promotion. Unfortunately, Defendant does not alert screen readers of this pop-up window. Instead, screen readers remain focused on the content of the Digital Platform’s underlying page, making the pop-up invisible to screen reader users. As a result, it is impossible for Plaintiff to perceive this promotion independently, the effect of which would require him to pay more on his order than shoppers who do not use screen reader technology to shop online. Click the picture contained in this paragraph or following link to view a short video describing this access barrier: https://youtu.be/MV1TyyGXhrM.
• The Digital Platform uses visual cues to convey content and other information. Unfortunately, screen readers cannot interpret these cues and communicate the information they represent to individuals with visual disabilities. For example, shoppers who perceive content visually will notice that many products available for purchase on the Digital Platform include two prices. One price—a higher price—appears in strikethrough font. The other—a lower price—does not. Shoppers who perceive content visually will understand that the price appearing in strikethrough font is the “old” or “original” price, while the price appearing in regular font is the “new” or “sale” price. Unfortunately, screen readers cannot identify the meanings of these two fonts so that users can make an informed decision. Instead, Defendant announces two prices for the same product, making it difficult for shoppers to determine with certainty what they signify, like different quantities, conditions, sizes, or in this case, sales. This unnecessary confusion frustrates Plaintiff’s ability to make informed purchasing decisions, and increases the odds he will abandon the purchase process without making a selection at all. Click the picture contained in this paragraph or following link to view a short video describing this access barrier: https://youtu.be/PMzaAtrGC4w.

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 Defendant communicated the digital content of its Digital Platform to individuals with disabilities effectively such that Murphy could fully, equally, and independently access Defendant’s products and services;
• 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 communicate the content of its Digital Platform to screen reader users effectively such that Defendant’s online products and services are fully, equally, and independently accessible to individuals with visual disabilities, 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 Plaintiff is described more fully below:55
• Within 90-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall complete an accessibility audit of its Digital Platform that will examine the accessibility and usability of the Digital Platform by consumers who are blind.
• Within 180-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop a corrective action strategy (“Strategy”) based on the audit findings. In addition to the deadlines outlined below, the Strategy shall include dates by which corrective action shall be completed.
• Within 210-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall disseminate the Strategy among its executive-level managers, employees, and contractors, if any, involved in digital development and post it on the Digital Platform.
• Within 90-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop a Digital Accessibility Policy Statement that demonstrates its commitment to digital accessibility to blind and other print disabled consumers, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. This Policy Statement shall be posted in the header of each homepage on the Digital Platform within 120-days of the Court’s Order, and shall disclose that an audit is taking or has taken place and that a Strategy will be disseminated and posted on the Digital Platform within 180-days of the Court’s Order.
• Within 240-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop procedures to implement its Digital Accessibility Policy across the entire Digital Platform. Defendant shall disseminate its Policy and procedures to its executive-level managers, employees, and contractors, if any, involved in digital development.
• Within 12-months of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall conduct training, instruction and support to ensure that all executive-level managers and employees involved in digital development are aware of and understand the Digital Accessibility Policy, including proper procedures, tools, and techniques to implement the Digital Accessibility Policy effectively and consistently.
• Within 12-months of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall hire or designate a staff person with responsibility and commensurate authority, to monitor the Digital Accessibility Policy and procedures.
• Within 12-months of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop and institute procedures that require third-party content and plug-ins built into the Digital Platform to provide blind consumers the same programs, benefits and services that they do to individuals without disabilities, except that when it is technically unfeasible to do so. Defendant shall effectuate these obligations by, among other things, implementing as part of its Request for Proposal process language that bidders meet the accessibility standards set forth in WCAG 2.0 Level AA for web-based technology and the Americans with Disabilities Act; requiring or encouraging, at Defendant’s discretion, as part of any contract with its vendors, provisions in which the vendor warrants that any technology provided complies with these standards and any applicable current federal disability law.
• Within 18-months, all pages hosted on the Digital Platform that have been published shall be Accessible to blind users. “Accessible” means fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by blind individuals so that blind consumers are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted consumers, with substantially equivalent ease of use.
• Defendant shall not release for public viewing or use a substantial addition, update, or change to the Digital Platform until it has determined through automated and user testing that those proposed additions, updates, or changes are Accessible.
• Defendant shall conduct (a) an automated scan monthly and (b) end-ser testing quarterly thereafter to ascertain whether any new posted content is accessible. Defendant shall notify all employees and contractors, if any, involved in digital development if corrections to Digital Platform are needed and of reasonable timelines for corrections to be made. Defendant shall note if corrective action has been taken during the next monthly scan and quarterly end-user test.
• Following the date of the Court’s Order, for each new, renewed, or renegotiated contract with a vendor of Third-Party Content, Defendant shall seek a commitment from the vendor to provide content in a format that is Accessible.
• Defendant shall provide Plaintiff, through his counsel, with a report on the first and second anniversaries of the Court’s Order which summarize the progress Defendant is making in meeting its obligations. Additional communication will occur before and after each anniversary to address any possible delays or other obstacles encountered with the implementation of the Digital Accessibility Policy.
• ayment of actual, statutory, nominal, 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;56
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate; and
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.