WRIGHT v. HYPER ICE, INC.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Demieli Wright
    • Filing date: January 27, 2021
    • State of filing: Indiana

    Defendant

    • Name: Hyper Ice Inc.
    • Website: www.hyperice.com/
    • Industry: Consumer Goods
    • Summary: Hyper Ice manufactures and sells powered massage devices for athletic training and recovery.

    Case Summary

    On January 27, 2021, Demieli Wright filed a Complaint in Indiana Federal court against Hyper Ice Inc.. Plaintiff Demieli Wright alleges that www.hyperice.com/ is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the promotional images contained in the homepage slider are not labeled. Each image in the homepage slider includes text such as “Shop Now, $50 off” but none of the slides are labeled. Each is announced as a blank or unlabeled image. Screen reader users cannot hear the content in the images, and are therefore unaware of the promotions.
    • The Website contains product tabs that are not accessible. The “compare HyperVolt” page shows three tabs, with each tab displaying new content for the selected product. Each product tab is announced, but users cannot access the product content shown in each tab. After the tab name is announced, the website updates to show the new tab, but then focus moves down to the very bottom of the page. Users cannot access the content using Tab key or Arrow key navigation.
    • Defendant’s Website contains a matrix that is available to compare all of their products but it is not accessible to screen reader users. The HyperVolts matrix shows each product in a side-by-side view. Each column includes the product name and a long list of details about each product. None of the content in the matrix is announced including the price and other details. The matrix is an image that is announced only as “desktop image.” Users cannot access any content in this image.

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

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

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

    • 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 that its website was 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 them to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 11 above.
    • Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive 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 Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
    • The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
    • An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.

    Comments