Erasmus v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc

Summary

On March 26, 2021, Megan D. Erasmus filed a Complaint in California State court against ULTA SALON COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE INC.. Plaintiff Megan D. Erasmus alleges that www.ulta.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Ulta manufactures and sells a broad line of cosmetics, nail care, skin care, hair, fragrance, and beauty products.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• When Plaintiff attempted to view video content on the Website, shediscovered that the videos lacked closed captioning, which made her unable to fully understand and consume the contents of the videos.

Legal claims

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

• Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.)
• Violation of the Unruh Civilrights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53.)

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendants were in violation of the requirements of the ADA due to Defendants’ failures to take action to ensure that its websites were fully accessible to and independently usable by hearing-impaired individuals, including providing closed-captioning on all video content containing audio elements.
• Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 12181, a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from violating the ADA with respect to its website, including a requirement that all current and future audio-video content closed captioned at the time of upload.
• Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act § 511, which provides for actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 for each offense.
• Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.