GIANNAROS v. EPIC SPORTS, INC.

• Defendant prevents screen reader users from accessing some primary content. For example, when consumers visit the Digital Platform from a new IP address, Defendant displays a pop-up window inviting them to “UNLOCK CLOSEOUT DEALS TODAY” by signing up for its email list. Shoppers who perceive content visually can type their email into the text field that Defendant provides in this pop-up window, then click “CONTINUE” to access the deals. Unfortunately, the Digital
  Platform does not alert screen readers of this pop-up window.
  Instead, screen readers remain focused on the content of the
  Digital Platform’s underlying page, making the pop-up invisible to Giannaros. As a result, it is impossible for Giannaros to perceive this promotion independently, the effect of which would require him to pay more on his order than shoppers who do not use screen reader technology to shop online.
• Consumers will discover an option in the Digital Platform’s navigation menu to contact Defendant’s customer
  service. After consumers click the “CHAT ONLINE” button,
  Defendant displays a pop-up window on the screen prompting consumers to provide their name and email address. Consumers who perceive content visually may provide this
  information in the appropriate text fields to contact Defendant’s customer service. Unfortunately, Defendant does not alert screen readers to this pop-up window. Instead, screen readers remain stuck on the unrelated elements in the Digital Platform’s underlying page. As a result, Giannaros
  is unlikely (or unable) to access this important help tool independently.
• Defendant does not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of users. A person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech. For example, the Digital Platform provides a five-star rating for many
  products that Defendant sells. Shoppers who perceive content
  visually can see whether a particular product has one, two, three, four, or five stars, and base their purchasing decisions on this information. Unfortunately, Defendant’s accessibility policies fail to provide sufficiently descriptive alternative text for this important rating information. To this end, Giannaros’s screen reader does not provide any audio information when it hovers over the stars on the Digital Platform. As a result, Giannaros must make his purchasing decisions without
  the benefit of knowing whether the products he’s researching are well received by other shoppers.
• Defendant does not provide a sufficient text equivalent for many important non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows information to be rendered in a variety of ways
  by a variety of users. A person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech. For example, shoppers who perceive content visually will see an image on the Digital Platform with text that provides: “EASTON UP TO 30% OFF Some exclusions apply Use coupon code EASTON.” Shoppers who perceive this content visually can perceive the coupon code, “EASTON,” and use it at checkout. Unfortunately, the alternative text associated with this image provides: “Easton save up to 30
  percent link image main landmark.” This alternative text frustrates Giannaros’s shopping experience because it does not include the coupon code he requires to access the discounted prices at checkout. As a result, he will have no choice but to pay more for Easton products than will
  shoppers who do not use screen reader auxiliary aids to shop online.
• Defendant prevents screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing primary
  content directly. For example, upon visiting the Digital Platform, shoppers who perceive content visually will see a floating bubble with text that reads, “CLOSE-OUT DEALS,” and understand that by clicking it, Defendant will present them with additional information regarding these deals. Unfortunately, because Defendant’s accessibility policies fail to ensure the Digital Platform is compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, Giannaros cannot activate this feature with his screen reader. Once again, the barriers on the Digital Platform will force Giannaros to pay more for his purchases than will shoppers who do not have a visual impairment.
• Defendant does not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of consumers. A person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech. For
  example, consumers who perceive content visually will notice
  various logos on the Digital Platform’s checkout platform
  identifying the payment methods that Defendant accepts,
  including Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover.
  Unfortunately, Defendant’s accessibility policies fail to ensure all of these logos include sufficiently descriptive alternative text. When screen readers hover over the image, Defendant announces “supported credit cards,” only. Because this alternative text does not provide sufficient detail, Giannaros is unable to determine whether the Digital Platform accepts
  his preferred method of payment.

Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 the Digital Platform 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 the Digital Platform into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that the Digital Platform 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 Plaintiff is described more fully below:
• Within 90-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall complete an accessibility audit of its Digital Platform that will examine the accessibility and usability of the Digital Platform by consumers who are blind.
• Within 180-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop a corrective action strategy (“Strategy”) based on the audit findings. In addition to the deadlines outlined below, the Strategy shall include dates by which corrective action shall be completed.
• Within 210-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall disseminate the Strategy among its executive-level managers, employees, and contractors, if any, involved in digital development and post it on the Digital Platform.
• Within 90-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop a Digital Accessibility Policy Statement that demonstrates its commitment to digital accessibility to blind and other print disabled consumers, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. This Policy Statement shall be posted on the Digital Platform within 120-days of the Court’s Order, and shall disclose that an audit is taking or has taken place and that a Strategy will be disseminated and posted on the Digital Platform within 180-days of the Court’s Order.
• Within 240-days of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop procedures to implement its Digital Accessibility Policy across the entire Digital Platform. Defendant shall disseminate its Policy and procedures to its executive-level managers, employees, and contractors, if any, involved in digital development.
• Within 12-months of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall conduct training, instruction and support to ensure that all executive-level managers and employees involved in digital development are aware of and understand the Digital Accessibility Policy, including proper procedures, tools, and techniques to implement the Digital Accessibility Policy effectively and consistently.
• Within 12-months of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall hire or designate a staff person with responsibility and commensurate authority, to monitor the Digital Accessibility Policy and procedures.
• Within 12-months of the Court’s Order, Defendant shall develop and institute procedures that require third-party content and plug-ins built into the Digital Platform to provide blind consumers the same programs, benefits and services that they do to individuals without disabilities, except that when it is technically unfeasible to do so. Defendant shall
  effectuate these obligations by, among other things, implementing as part of its Request for Proposal process language that bidders meet the accessibility standards set forth in WCAG 2.0 Level AA for web-based technology and the Americans with Disabilities Act; requiring or encouraging, at Defendant’s discretion, as part of any contract with its vendors, provisions in which the vendor warrants that any technology provided complies with these standards and any applicable current federal disability law.
• Within 18-months, all pages hosted on the Digital Platform that have been published shall be Accessible to blind users. “Accessible” means fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by blind individuals so that blind consumers are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted consumers, with substantially equivalent ease of use.
• Defendant shall not release for public viewing or use a substantial addition, update, or change to the Digital Platform until it has determined through automated and user testing
  that those proposed additions, updates, or changes are Accessible.
• Defendant shall conduct (a) an automated scan monthly and (b) end-user testing quarterly thereafter to ascertain whether any new posted content is accessible. Defendant shall notify all employees and contractors, if any, involved in digital development if corrections to Digital Platform are needed and of reasonable timelines for corrections to be made. Defendant
  shall note if corrective action has been taken during the next monthly scan and quarterly end-user test.
• Following the date of the Court’s Order, for each new, renewed, or renegotiated contract with a vendor of Third-Party Content, Defendant shall seek a commitment from the vendor to provide content in a format that is Accessible.
• Defendant shall provide Plaintiff, through his counsel, with a report on the first and second anniversaries of the Court’s Order which summarize the progress Defendant is making to meet its obligations. Additional communication will occur before and after each anniversary to address any possible delays or other obstacles encountered with the implementation of the Digital Accessibility Policy.
• Payment of actual, statutory, nominal, 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;
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate; and
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.