Tatum-rios v. Amorepacific US, Inc.

Summary

On August 6, 2019, Lynette Tatum-Rios filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Amorepacific US, Inc. Etude LLC Etude House Inc. Etude House Co. Ltd.. Plaintiff Lynette Tatum-Rios alleges that www.etudehouse.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Etude sells Asian cosmetics and beauty products to United States customers via its website.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Lack of alt-text for images.
• Fieldset elements are not labeled with legend elements.
• Button elements containing only an image do not have an altattribute on the image and button elements are empty.
• Tables are not properly tagged.
• Frames do not have a title.
• Some pages have the same title so the title cannot be used todistinguish pages.
• Webpages have duplicate IDs which can cause problems in screen readers.
• Headings are empty.
• Webpages have markup errors

Legal claims

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

• Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
• New York State Human Rights Law
• New York City Human Rights Law
• 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 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. and the laws of New York;
• A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with requirements set forth in the ADA and its implementing regulations, so that the Website is readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals;
• A declaration that Defendant owns, maintains and/or operates its Website in a manner that discriminates against the blind and which fails to provide access for persons with disabilities as required by Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. and the laws of New York
• An order certifying the Class and the State and City Sub-Classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel;
• Compensatory and damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, to Plaintiff and the proposed class for violations of their civil rights under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Law;
• Pre- and post-judgment interest;
• An award of costs and expenses of this action together withreasonable attorneys’ and expert fees; and
• Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.