PATRICK DUNN vs. EARTHBOUND HOLDING, LLC

a) Defendant is excluding, denying services, and otherwise segregating Plaintiff from all of the benefits and services Defendant offers through its mobile apps as a result of its failure to modify its mobile application platform to allow assistive technology, which includes, but is not limited to, voice recognition, alternative input methods, assistive touch functions, among other accessibility methods that Plaintiff requires, to compete on an equal basis and maintain independent self-sufficiency;

b) Defendant is excluding, denying services, or otherwise segregating Plaintiff, because unlike able bodied individuals, disabled individuals are excluded from Defendant’s services that enable individuals to locate the nearest Earthbound Trading Co. store through the mobile apps;

c) Defendant is excluding, denying services, or otherwise segregating Plaintiff, because unlike able-bodied individuals,disabled individuals are excluded from Defendant’s services that enable individuals to register their email address or social media accounts to receive rewards and discounts through the mobile apps;

d) Defendant is excluding, denying services, or otherwise segregating Plaintiff, because unlike able-bodied individuals, disabled individuals are excluded from Defendant’s services that enable individuals to establish a rewards account and enjoy the benefits which include but are not limited to (1) view rewards and other exclusive offers, (2) move through the checkout process faster, (3) store multiple shipping addresses; (4) view and track the online orders in the account, among other features through the mobile apps;

e) Defendant is excluding, denying services, or otherwise segregating Plaintiff, because unlike able bodied individuals, disabled individuals are excluded from Defendant’s services that enable individuals to access and view all of the benefits of Earthbound Trading Co. in addition to communicating with a store representative through the mobile chat through the use of the mobile apps;

f) Defendant is excluding, denying services, or otherwise segregating Plaintiff, because unlike able-bodied individuals, disabled individuals are excluded from Defendant’s services that enable individuals to access and view all of the benefits of Earthbound Trading Co. in addition to receive the benefits itself of the rewards and discounts program through the mobile apps;

g) Defendant is excluding, denying services, and otherwise segregating Plaintiff as a result of its failure to modify equipment, devices and other similar services. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(3)—(4). h) Defendant is excluding, denying services, or otherwise segregating Plaintiff of all the goods and services offered on its mobile apps as a result of Defendant’s failure to design its mobile apps that enable alternative assistive technology.

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, TITLE III 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) (Architectural Barriers)

VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, TITLE III 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (Practices, procedures, and policies denying equal benefits)

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (Denial of Full and Equal Enjoyment)

IOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Failure to design and construct facilities for ADA compliance)

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (Failure to Provide Website Accessibility)

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, TITLE III (Failure to Provide Mob ile Application Accessibility)

1) That the Court declares that the leased properties and operated businesses by the Defendant as well as all Defendant’s illegal actions described herein violate the ADA, as more particularly described above;

(2) That the Court enters an Order enjoining the Defendant to alter the facilities described above to make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA, to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) and (v) and implementing regulations, as stated in Count One;

(3) That the Court enters an Order, in accordance with Count Two, directing the Defendant to modify its policies, practices, and procedures both to remedy the numerous ADA violations outlined above, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), and to permanently enjoin Defendant to make its business practices consistent with ADA Title III in the future;

(4) That the Court enters an Order directing the Defendant to provide Plaintiff full and equal access both to the Earthbound Trading Co. experience and to the use of the Defendant’s retail stores, and further order Defendant to maintain the required accessible features at the retail stores in the locations described above so that Plaintiff and others similarly situated are offered the experience that is offered to non-disabled individuals, as stated in Count Three; (

5) That the Court enters an Order directing the Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its policies, practices, and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time so as to allow them to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

(6) That the Court enjoins Defendant to remediate the Earthbound Trading Co. retail stores in both Destin and Pensacola Locations to the proper level of accessibility required for the design and construction of the facilities for first occupancy, as stated in Count Four;

(7) That the Court enters an Order requiring that Defendant adopts and implements a website accessibility policy and take the necessary actions to make its website and website applications accessible to the Plaintiff, as particularly described in Count Five and Six;

(8) That the Court enters an Order requiring Defendant to place on its homepage a statement concerning its website accessibility policy; provide training to all its workers and associates who write or develop programs or code; and test its website quarterly to identify and repair any incidence of nonconformance;

(9) That the Court enters an Order requiring Defendant to adopt and implement a mobile application accessibility policy and take the necessary actions to make its mobile application accessible to the Plaintiff, as particularly described in Count Six;

(10) That the Court enters an Order requiring Defendant to place on its mobile application a statement covering its mobile application accessibility policy; provide training to all its workers and associates who write or develop the programs and code for the mobile application; and test the mobile application quarterly to identify and repair any indication of non-conformance; (

11) That the Court awards reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, (including expert fees) and other expenses of suit, to Plaintiff; (12) That the Court awards such other, further, and different relief to Plaintiff as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.