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.

Geovanni Bahena Figueroa v. DesignLibro, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, Plaintiff GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, a visually-impaired individual, is suing DESIGNLIBRO, INC. for failing to make its website, www.petlibro.com, accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff alleges that he encountered numerous barriers while attempting to access the website to purchase a smart fountain, including missing alt-text and broken links, which denied him equal access to the goods and services offered. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to comply with accessibility standards and to implement changes to ensure the website is usable for blind individuals.

About the defendant

Offers a range of smart pet-care products including automatic feeders, water fountains, monitoring devices, and accessories designed for pet care.

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 multiple access barriers preventing full use of 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.
  • Declaration that Defendant’s website discriminates against blind individuals.
  • Certification of the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

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.