Can we count your visit?

Our analytics service records the pages you view, so we can see which ones are useful. It saves a random ID in your browser, and we never use it for advertising. Read our privacy policy.

Caitlin Walsh v. Archies Footwear, LLC

Filed

Case details

Summary

According to the complaint, plaintiff Caitlin Walsh, a visually impaired individual, alleges that Archies Footwear, LLC has failed to make its website, www.archiesfootwear.com, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint details multiple access barriers that prevent Walsh from independently navigating the site to purchase products, specifically flip-flops. Key issues include missing alt-text, broken links, and unclear labels for interactive elements. Walsh seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to comply with accessibility standards and to ensure that the website is usable for individuals with visual impairments. The lawsuit aims to represent all legally blind individuals who have faced similar barriers on the website.

About the defendant

Offers flip-flops and slides with built-in arch support, designed for comfort and foot health, including a 60-day free trial with a money back guarantee.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant's website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
  • Plaintiff encountered barriers preventing her from purchasing products on the website.
  • Defendant has failed to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.
  • Declaratory Relief

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • Permanent injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to blind individuals.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • Award of costs and expenses of this action.

Proposed class

The group of people the plaintiff asks to represent, so the case can cover them too.

All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, during the relevant statutory period.