SANTOS v. CURLMIX, INC.

• Defendant’s Website contains a pop-up that offers 15% off, but this is not announced to screen reader users. As the user navigates the page, focus does not move into the pop-up. The pop-up does not receive focus immediately, nor are screen reader users alerted when it is presented, so they will not be aware of the offer contained in the pop-up.
• The menu items on Defendant’s Website are not all accessible for keyboard- only users. The “shop” and “discover” menu items are not accessible by the tab key. The items do not show a visible focus and are not announced. Screen reader users and keyboard-only users depend on actionable items such as links, buttons, and fields, to be accessible by the tab key, as required. In this case, some of the menu items are in the tab index while others are skipped. Screen reader users will not be aware of the skipped menu items if they are using tab key navigation.
• Defendant’s Website contains a customer review section that is not labeled. A user does not hear that an item has a 5 out of 5 star rating, nor do they hear that they are on the customer review element. Instead, the user only hears “281 link.” A user first hears the name of the product when they tab to it. With the next tab press the user will hear “281 link.” The lack of label creates a confusing experience. Additionally, some users will be impacted because the “Shop Now” button turns white when a user hovers over it.

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.