DOUGLASS v. ADORAMA INC.

• 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 inviting them to “sign up for special offers, product news,
  exclusive deals, and more.” Consumers who perceive content visually can type their email into the text field that Defendant provides in the pop-up window, then click “Unlock Offers” 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 Douglass to perceive this promotion independently, the effect of which denies him the opportunity to view special offers, product news, exclusive deals, and more.
• The Digital Platform does not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of users. A person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using
  synthesized speech. For example, the Digital Platform provides a five-star rating for many products that Defendant sells. Consumers 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 fail to provide sufficiently descriptive alternative text for this important rating information. To this end, screen readers skip over the stars on the Digital Platform without attempting to communicate with these stars represent. As a result, Douglass must make his purchasing decisions without the benefit of knowing whether the products he’s researching are well received by other consumers.
• Defendant does not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of consumers. A person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech. For example, consumers who perceive content visually will notice various logos on the Digital Platform’s checkout platform identifying the payment methods that Defendant accepts, including Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Unfortunately, Defendant fails to communicate this information in a non-visual alternative. Instead, when screen readers tab to this piece of content, Defendant announces “credit card,” only. As a result, Douglass is unable to determine whether the Digital Platform accepts his preferred method of payment.
• Defendant fails to provide informative error messages and a means of navigating to them when consumers are required to fix a form submission. It is inevitable that, on occasion, screen reader users will be unsuccessful in submitting information into an online form. In
  these cases, screen reader users should be redirected to the page they were on prior to the error or to the error itself. For example, consumers who perceive content visually will be redirected to red error indicators on the Digital Platform when, for example, they fail to include required content. These consumers can then click the form field to provide the missing information indicated in red. Unfortunately, Defendant fails to similarly redirect screen reader users to the error indicators when appropriate. Instead, screen readers who proceed through content sequentially continue to navigate down the page, below the Place Order button. As a result, Douglass is less likely to resolve any errors and complete the form successfully.
• Consumers who perceive content visually will notice a pop-up window after clicking the Digital Platform’s Live Chat feature. In this case, the pop-up window notifies shoppers that no customer service representative is available to provide assistance. Unfortunately, Defendant fails to notify screen readers when this pop-up window appears. Instead, screen readers remain stuck on the Digital Platform’s underlying page, making it impossible for users, including Douglass, to perceive this information. As a result, Douglass and other screen reader users are less likely to get the help they need to complete a purchase, or notify Defendant of the Digital Platform’s many access barriers so they may be fixed.

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 Douglass could fully, equally, and independently access Defendant’s goods 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 goods 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:56
• Within 90-days of the Court’s Order, Defendantshall 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
  24 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.
• Payment 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;
• 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.