Henry Tucker v. Ten Forward LLC
Filed
Case details
- Defendant’s website
- Standards cited
- WCAG 2.0
Summary
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Henry Tucker, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Defendant Ten Forward LLC for failing to make its website accessible as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The website, which sells probiotic supplements and related products, allegedly contains multiple barriers that prevent blind users from accessing its content and services. Plaintiff claims that these barriers include lack of alternative text for images and broken links, which hinder navigation and purchasing. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction to require the Defendant to improve website accessibility and compensatory damages for the alleged discrimination.
About the defendant
Operates an online retail store selling probiotic supplements, soaps, and lotions, providing information about products, pricing, and policies.
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 ADA requirements for website accessibility.
Legal claims
The laws the plaintiff says the defendant broke, called causes of action.
- Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
- Violations of the NYSHRL
- Violations of the NYCHRL
- Violation of GBL § 349
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.
- Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law and GBL § 349.
- Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
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 offered by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.