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.

Julie Dalton v. Viome Life Sciences, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1 Level AA

Summary

According to the complaint, Julie Dalton, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is suing Viome Life Sciences, Inc. for failing to make its website, www.viome.com, accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The plaintiff alleges that the website contains numerous barriers that prevent effective communication for screen reader users, such as pop-up content that is not announced, unclear links, and inaccessible images. Dalton seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make its website accessible, along with damages and attorney's fees.

About the defendant

offers personalized health tests and supplements for sale including full body intelligence tests, gut intelligence tests, oral health intelligence tests, precision supplements, biotic toothpaste, oral lozenges, probiotics, and more

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant’s Website is not fully accessible to people who are blind or have low vision
  • Website fails to alert screen readers to pop-up content
  • Links and buttons are not clear for screen reader users
  • Insufficient text equivalent for important non-text images
  • Moving content is not narrated for screen reader users

Legal claims

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

  • Violation of Title III of the ADA
  • Violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • Permanent injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible
  • Civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
  • Damages
  • Damage multiplier
  • Statutory attorney’s fees and costs

Proposed class

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

All blind or have a low vision disability within the meaning of the ADA who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital online content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or who may access or attempt to access Defendant’s Website.