Plaintiff
- Name: Daniel Barlow
- Filing Date: March 20, 2026
- Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois
- State: Illinois
- Attorney Firm: Equal Access Law Group, PLLC
Defendant
- Name: Clive Holdings, LLC
- Website: clivecoffee.com
- Industry: Consumer Goods
- Standards Cited: WCAG 2.2
- Summary: Provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including espresso machines, coffee grinders, coffee makers, and related accessories for home coffee brewing.
Case Summary
According to the complaint, Daniel Barlow, a visually impaired individual, is suing Clive Holdings, LLC for failing to make its website, clivecoffee.com, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Barlow alleges that the website contains significant barriers that prevent him and others from independently navigating and completing purchases. He encountered issues such as ambiguous link texts and a lack of alternative text for images, which hindered his ability to use the site effectively. Barlow seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make the website accessible and compensatory damages for the discrimination faced by him and other class members.
Causes of Action
- Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Key Allegations
- Website is inaccessible to visually impaired individuals
- Access barriers prevent independent navigation and transactions
- Defendant failed to implement necessary accessibility features
Requested Relief
- Preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit violations of the ADA
- Injunction requiring compliance with ADA
- Declaration of discriminatory practices
- Class action certification
- Pre- and post-judgment interest
- Award of costs and attorney fees
Proposed Class
all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by the Website, during the relevant statutory period.
Jurisdiction & Venue
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12182; venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) and (2).
