CLARK v. KITU LIFE, INC.

• Defendant’s Website contains a promotional pop-up that offers 15% off the first purchase, however, it is not announced to screen reader users. When a pop-up box is displayed, it must be announced, or focus must move into the pop-up; neither happened when this pop-up was displayed.
• The cart window is not announced on Defendant’s Website. A cart preview window is displayed after a user adds an item to the cart to inform them that the item was successfully added. Screen reader users do not receive any type of confirmation after they add an item to the cart. This creates uncertainty since the user does not hear a confirmation after pushing the button, but does hear other items on the page, so it appears that the submit button is not working.
• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the “invite friends” button is not labeled. A screen reader user cannot refer a friend and take advantage of the “give $15, get $15” offer. The “invite friends” button is announced as blank, so a screen reader user cannot tell what type of element they are on or what action is required.

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

• 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