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.

Howard Wilson v. Evolutions Brands, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, Plaintiff HOWARD WILSON, a visually-impaired individual, is suing EVOLUTIONS BRANDS, INC. for failing to make its website, www.bedstu.com, accessible to blind users. The plaintiff alleges that he encountered numerous barriers while attempting to purchase leather shoes, including missing alt-text and broken links, which prevented him from accessing the website's goods and services. The complaint cites violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to comply with accessibility standards. The plaintiff also seeks damages and costs associated with the lawsuit.

About the defendant

Offers a selection of handcrafted leather footwear, including boots, sneakers, sandals, and casual shoes, as well as related accessories such as belts and leather care products.

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 that denied full access to the website.
  • Defendant 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.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • Award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees.

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.