Can we count your visit?

Our analytics service records the pages you view, so we can see which ones are useful. It saves a random ID in your browser, and we never use it for advertising. Read our privacy policy.

Rosemarie Ramirez v. Ryze, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, plaintiff Rosemarie Ramirez, a visually impaired individual, alleges that RYZE, INC. has failed to make its website, www.ryzesuperfoods.com, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff claims that she encountered numerous barriers while attempting to purchase mushroom coffee, including missing alt-text and broken links, which prevented her from accessing the website's goods and services. Ramirez seeks a permanent injunction requiring RYZE to comply with accessibility standards and to implement changes to ensure equal access for visually impaired consumers.

About the defendant

Offers mushroom-based beverages and wellness products, including mushroom-infused coffee, available for direct purchase online.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant's website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
  • Plaintiff encountered barriers preventing her from purchasing products on the website.
  • Defendant failed to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.
  • 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.
  • An order requiring Defendant to make its website fully compliant with the ADA.
  • A declaration that Defendant’s website discriminates against the blind.

Proposed class

The group of people the plaintiff asks to represent, so the case can cover them too.

all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, during the relevant statutory period.