Erika Randolph v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. d/b/a Boost

Case Summary

According to the complaint, Erika Randolph, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. for failing to make its website, Boost.com, accessible to blind users. The complaint alleges that Randolph encountered numerous barriers while attempting to purchase nutritional drinks online, including ambiguous link texts and a lack of keyboard navigation. The plaintiff claims these issues violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make the website accessible, along with compensatory damages for the discrimination faced. The case is filed as a class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals who have faced similar issues accessing Boost.com.

Causes of Action

• Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. - Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
• Declaratory Relief
• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Key Allegations

• Boost.com is inaccessible to blind and visually-impaired persons.
• Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers preventing her from completing a transaction.
• Defendant failed to implement necessary modifications to make the website accessible.

Requested Relief

• Preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA.
• Injunction requiring Defendant to make Boost.com compliant with the ADA.
• Declaration of discrimination against the blind on Boost.com.
• Class action certification and appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative.
• Payment of nominal damages.
• Pre- and post-judgment interest.
• Award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees.
• Punitive damages.
• Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

Proposed Class

all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Boost.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Boost.com, 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).