Jahoda v. E-distributors, Inc.

Summary

On January 11, 2021, Robert Jahoda filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against E-Distributors, Inc.. Plaintiff Robert Jahoda alleges that www.rockvilleaudio.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

E-Distributors, Inc., doing business as Rockville Audio, manufactures and sells audio equipment, speakers, and related electronics.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Links and buttons on the Website do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link or select a particular button, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, the Website contains links to their social media. When the links are selected the consumer is directed tothe appropriate social media platform. Shoppers who perceive content visually will likely recognize that there are images that represent the Defendant’s social media links, such as Facebook. When selecting those links, the screen reader only describes it as “rockville audio link image”.
• Buttons on the Website do not describe theirpurpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, shoppers who perceive content visually will likely recognize the Website’s Shopping Cart icon, and understand that by clicking it, Defendant will redirect them to its online checkout platform.Unfortunately, this icon is not labeled with sufficiently descriptive alternative text. As a result, when Plaintiff hovers over it, his screen reader reads “zero link navigation landmark”. Because this text is meaningless without additional context, Plaintiff is less likely to locate Defendant’s online payment platform and complete a purchasesuccessfully.
• The Website uses visual cues to convey content and other information to sighted users. Unfortunately, screen readers cannot interpret these cues and communicate the information they represent to individuals with visual disabilities. For example, shoppers who perceive content visually will notice that many products available for purchase on Defendant’sWebsite include two prices. One price—a higher price—appears in strikethrough font. The other—a lower price—does not. These shoppers will likely infer that the price appearing in strikethrough font is the “old” or “original” price, while the price appearing in regular font is the “new” or “sale” price. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs’ screen readers cannot identifythe meanings of these two fonts so that they can make an informed decision. Instead, Plaintiffs hear two prices for the same product, and cannot determine what they signify, like different quantities, conditions, sizes, or in this case, sales. This confusion prevents Plaintiffs from making informed purchasing decisions, and increases the odds they will abandon the purchase process without making a selection at all.

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