Ahoda v. Crackle Plus, LLC

Summary

On January 29, 2021, Robert Jahoda filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Crackle Plus LLC. Plaintiff Robert Jahoda alleges that www.crackle.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

Crackle is an online television service offering ad-based and subscription-based services for live and on-demand television programming.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• blind and visually impaired on-demand users and potential users do not have full access to Crackle’s video-streaming service because Defendant does not provide audio description tracks for video content provided on its platform.
• Similar to closed captioning and subtitles, video providers offer audio description tracks as an option for the consumer to select during a TV show or movie.
• Website does not provide audio description tracks as an option for its on-demand users.

Legal claims

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

• Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
• A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504(a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 10 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and other damages, as the Court deems proper
• Payment of costs of suit
• Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505, including costs of monitoring Defendant’s compliance with the judgment. See People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant have complied with the Court’s Orders