KOLESAR v. KiSS PRODUCTS, INC.

• Links and buttons on the Websites do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, visitors who perceive content visually will likely recognize the Websites’ menu icon of three stacked lines, and understand that by clicking it, Defendant direct them to the Websites’ menu. Unfortunately, this icon is not labeled with any descriptive alternative text. As a result, when Plaintiff hovers over it, the screen reader does not recognize it as readable text or image. Because this is meaningless without additional context, Plaintiff is less likely to locate the Websites’ menu as sighted users would be.
• Buttons on the Websites that are meant to be links are not properly labeled or accessible with a screen reader. As a result, blind users are not aware that they can be directed to other resources for the Websites. For an example, at the bottom of the page there is a link for the App Store that will redirect consumers to the store so that they may download the companies app. When Plaintiff hovers over this button no alternative text is read describing what the image is nor is there an active link. Plaintiff is then unable to easily download and make purchases through the company’s mobile application.
• Text and images on the Websites do not describe their purpose or provide a non-text description. For example, reading and leaving reviews is available for each product that the Defendant sells. Under the image of the product there is a picture of a row of stars as well as the text “write a review”. When Plaintiff hovers over the image and the text the screen reader does not describe the image or read the text. Because of the lack of description blind users are unable to access and leave reviews for the Defendant’s products.

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

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the start of this action Defendant was in violation 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 is 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 it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 11 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and other 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 People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendants have complied with the Court’s Orders