Licea v. Britax Child Safety, Inc.

Summary

On April 8, 2020, Luis Licea filed a Complaint in California State court against Britax Child Safety, Inc.. Plaintiff Luis Licea alleges that www.britax.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Britax manufactures and sells car seats and booster seats for infants, toddlers, and children. The company also manufactures and sells strollers, travel systems, and accessories under the BOB Gear brand name.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Missing alternative text which presents a problem because an image without alternative text results in an empty link. Alternative Text is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that Alternative Text be coded with each picture so that a screen reader can speak the Alternative Text where a sighted user sees pictures. Alternative Text does not change the visual presentation, but instead generates a text box that will pop-up when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of Alternative Text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;
• Document language missing, which presents a problem because the language of the document is not identified. Identifying the language of the page allows screen readers to read the content in the appropriate language. It also facilitates automatic translation of content; and
• Broken ARIA references, which presents a problem because an arialabelled by or aria-described by reference exists, but the target for the reference does not exist. ARIA labels and descriptions will not be presented if the element referenced does not exist in the page.
• Missing alternative text which presents a problem because an image without alternative text results in an empty link. Alternative Text is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that Alternative Text be coded with each picture so that a screen reader can speak the Alternative Text where a sighted user sees pictures. Alternative Text does not change the visual presentation, but instead generates a text box that will pop-up when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of Alternative Text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;
• Linked image missing alternative text which presents a problem because an image without alternative text results in an empty link. Images that are the only thing within a link must have descriptive alternative text. If an image is within a link that contains no text and that image does not provide alternative text, a screen reader has no content to present to the user regarding the function of the link;
• Document language missing, which presents a problem because the language of the document is not identified. Identifying the language of the page allows screen readers to read the content in the appropriate language. It also facilitates automatic translation of content; and
• Empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen reader users

Legal claims

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

• Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• For a judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.;
• For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make the Websites, http://www.bobgear.com and https://us.britax.com, readily accessible to and usable by visually-impaired individuals; but Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendant expend no more $20,000 as the cost of injunctive relief;
• An award of statutory minimum damages of $4,000 per violation pursuant to section 52(a) of the California Civil Code; however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999;
• For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without limitation, California Civil Code § 52(a); however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999;
• For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law;
• For costs of suit; and
• For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.