Licea v. Sonic Industries Services Inc.

Summary

On June 15, 2020, Luis Licea filed a Complaint in California State court against Sonic Industries Services Inc.. Plaintiff Luis Licea alleges that www.sonicdrivein.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Sonic Industries owns and operates the Sonic fast-food chain selling hamburgers, fries, and frozen desserts at drive-in locations across the country.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Empty or missing form labels which presents a problem because, if a form control does not have a properly associated text label, the function or purpose of that form control may not be presented to screen reader users. Form labels provide visible descriptions and larger clickable targets for formcontrols;
• Empty headings, which present a problem because a heading contains no content keyboard and screen reader users often navigate by heading elements. An empty heading will presentno information and may introduce confusion;
• Empty links which present a problem because a linkcontains no text. If a link contains no text, the function or purpose of the link will not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen reader users; and
• Redundant Linksvwhere adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetitionfor 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 Plaintiffs’ 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 Website, https://www.sonicdrivein.com/, and the Sonic Drive-In mobileapplication, readily accessible to and usable by visually-impaired individuals; but Plaintiffs hereby expressly limit 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, Plaintiffs expressly limit 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, Plaintiffs expressly limit the total amount ofrecovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999;5. For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law;6. For costs of suit; and7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.