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.

Joseph Lamperis v. Turbo Holdings, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, Joseph Lamperis, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Turbo Holdings, Inc. for failing to make its website, www.triplefatgoose.com, accessible to blind users as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff alleges that he encountered multiple barriers while attempting to access the website to purchase a specific product, the Jacobsen Men’s Puffer Down Vest. These barriers included missing alt-text, broken links, and other accessibility issues that prevented him from fully utilizing the website. Lamperis seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make its website accessible and to implement corporate policies ensuring ongoing compliance with accessibility standards. He also requests class certification for all legally blind individuals who have faced similar issues.

About the defendant

Offers a range of men’s and women’s jackets, parkas, and vests designed for outdoor conditions, available for online sale.

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.

  • A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA.
  • An injunction requiring Defendant to make its website fully compliant with the ADA.
  • A declaration that Defendant’s website discriminates against the blind.
  • Class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • Pre- and post-judgment interest.
  • An 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.