Plaintiff
- Name: Howard Wilson
- Filing Date: June 3, 2026
- Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois
- State: Illinois
- Attorney Firm: Stein Saks, PLLC
Defendant
- Name: Healthyline Holding, Inc.
- Website: www.healthyline.com
- Industry: Consumer Goods
- Standards Cited: WCAG 2.1
- Summary: Offers a variety of therapeutic products, including mats, accessories, and wellness solutions designed for home use.
Case Summary
According to the complaint, Howard Wilson, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Healthyline Holding, Inc. for failing to make its website, www.healthyline.com, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Wilson alleges that he encountered numerous barriers while attempting to access the website to purchase a wellness mat, including missing alt-text and broken links. He seeks a permanent injunction requiring the company to comply with accessibility standards and to ensure that its website is usable by individuals with disabilities. The complaint also seeks class certification for all legally blind individuals who have faced similar issues with the website.
Causes of Action
- Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.
- Declaratory Relief
Key Allegations
- Defendant’s website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
- Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied full access to the website.
- Defendant failed to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines.
Requested Relief
- A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA.
- An injunction requiring Defendant to make its website fully compliant with the ADA.
- A declaration that Defendant discriminates against the blind through its website.
- Certification of the Class and appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative.
- Payment of nominal damages.
- Pre- and post-judgment interest.
- An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees.
Proposed Class
All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, 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.

