Mejico v. Miracle-ear, Inc.

Summary

On February 3, 2020, Brittney Mejico filed a Complaint in California State court against Miracle-Ear, Inc.. Plaintiff Brittney Mejico alleges that www.miracle-ear.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Miracle-Ear, Inc. is a hearing aid company consisting of a network of franchised and corporately-owned retail outlets. It is a subsidiary of the Italian company

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 the visual 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 buttons, which means that a button is empty or has no value text. When navigating to a button, descriptive text must be presented to screen reader users to indicate the function of the button;
• Empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen reader users; and
• Missing form label, which means that a form control does not have a corresponding label. 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 also provide visible descriptions and larger clickable targets for form controls.

Legal claims

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

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

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• For a judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.
• For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make the Websites readily accessible to and usable by visually-impaired individuals, but Plaintiff hereby expressly limit the injunctive relief to require the Defendant expend no more than $20,000 as the cost of injunctive relief;
• An award of statutory minimum damages of $4,000 per violation pursuant to section 52(a) of the California Civil Code, however, Plaintiff expressly limit the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999;
• For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without limitation, California Civil Code § 52(a); however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not t exceed $74,999;
• For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law;
• For costs of suit; and
• For such other and further relief as the Court Deems just and proper.