Rendon v. Capterra Inc

Summary

On March 8, 2021, Rusty Rendon filed a Complaint in California State court against Capterra, Inc. Plaintiff Rusty Rendon alleges that www.capterra.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Capterra develops and sells business software including accounting, CAD, project management, and related software and SaaS models.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Missing alternative text which presents a problem because an image without alternative text results in an empty link. Alternative Text is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that Alternative Text be coded with each picture so that a screen reader can speak the Alternative Text where a sighted user sees pictures. Alternative Text does not change thevisual presentation, but instead generates a text box that will pop-up when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of Alternative Text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;
• Empty or missing form labels which presents a problembecause, if a form control does not have a properly associated text label, the function or purpose of that form control may not be presented to screen reader users. Form labels provide visible descriptions and larger clickable targets for form controls;
• Empty links which present a problem because a link contains no text. If a link contains no text, the function or purpose of the link will not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen reader users; and
• Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetitionfor keyboard and screen reader users.

Legal claims

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

• Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• For a judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.
• For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make the Website readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals; but Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendant expend no more $20,000 as the cost of injunctive relief
• An award of statutory minimum damages of $4,000 per violation pursuant to section 52(a) of the California Civil Code; however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999
• For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without limitation, California Civil Code § 52(a); however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999
• For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law
• For costs of suit
• For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.