PAGUADA v. CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE COMPANY

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Dilenia Paguada
    • Filing date: October 25, 2020
    • State of filing: New York

    Defendant

    • Name: Chocolate Chocolate Chocolate Company
    • Website: www.bissingers.com
    • Industry: Food Products
    • Summary: Chocolate Chocolate Chocolate Company owns and operates Bissingers, a chocolatier purporting to have been selling chocolates since opening in Paris in the Seventeenth Century.

    Case Summary

    On October 25, 2020, Dilenia Paguada filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Chocolate Chocolate Chocolate Company. Plaintiff Dilenia Paguada alleges that www.bissingers.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 non- existent 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.
    • The Website does not provide a text equivalent for every non-text element;
    • The purpose of each link cannot be determined from the link text alone or from the link text and its programmatically determined link context;
    • Web pages lack titles that describe their topic or purpose;
    • Headings and labels do not describe topic or purpose;
    • Keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the keyboard focus
      indicator is visible;
    • The default human language of each web page cannot be programmatically
      determined;
    • The human language of each passage or phrase in the content cannot be
      programmatically determined;
    • Labels or instructions are not always provided when content requires user input;
    • Text cannot be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology so that it
      may still be viewed without loss of content or functionality;
    • A mechanism is not always available to bypass blocks of content that are
      repeated on multiple web pages;
    • A correct reading sequence is not provided on pages where the sequence in
      which content is presented affects its meaning;
    • Content implemented using markup languages, elements do not always have complete start and end tags, are not nested according to their specifications, may contain duplicate attributes, and IDs are not always unique; and
    • The name and role of all UI elements cannot be programmatically determined; things that can be set by the user cannot be programmatically set; and/or notification of changes to these items is not available to user agents, including assistive technology.

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

    • VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq
    • VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL
    • 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
    • Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

    Comments