Martinez v. Edmunds.com, Inc.

Summary

On February 2, 2021, Abelardo Martinez, Jr. filed a Complaint in California State court against Edumnuds.com. Plaintiff Abelardo Martinez, Jr. alleges that www.edmunds.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Edmunds is an online (previously print) resource for consumer automobile values

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Missing alternative text which presents a problem because an image without alternative text results in an empty link. Alternative Text is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that Alternative Text be coded with each picture so that a screen reader can speak the Alternative Text where a sighted user sees pictures. Alternative Text does not change thevisual presentation, but instead generates a text box that will pop-up when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of Alternative Text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;
• Empty or missing form labels which presents a problembecause, if a form control does not have a properly associated text label, the function or purpose of that form control may not be presented to screen reader users. Form labels provide visible descriptions and larger clickable targets for form controls; and
• Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen reader users.

Legal claims

The laws the plaintiff says the defendant broke, called causes of action.

• Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, etseq., and N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York;
• A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its App into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that the App is readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals;
• A declaration that Defendant owns, maintains and/or operates its App in a manner which discriminates against the blind and which fails to provide access for persons with disabilities as required by Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York;
• An order directing Defendants to continually update and maintain its App to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and usable by the visually-impaired;
• Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages and fines, to Plaintiff for violations of their civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law and City Law;
• Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit as provided by state and federal law;
• For pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law; and
• For such other and further relief which this court deems just and proper.