Rendon v. Value Eyecare Network, Inc.

Summary

On August 24, 2020, Rusty Rendon filed a Complaint in California State court against Value Eyecare Network, Inc.. Plaintiff Rusty Rendon alleges that www.39dollarglasses.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Via its website, Value Eyecare Network allows customers to order prescription eyeglasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses.

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 the visual presentation, but instead generates a text box that will popup 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. As a result, at all relevant times, visually-impaired 39Dollar Glasses customers were unable to determine what was on thewebsite, browse the site, and determine whether or not to purchase Defendant’s products;
• Linked image missing alternative text which presents a problem because an image without alternative textresults in an empty link. Images that are the only thing within a link must have descriptive alternative text. If an image is within a link that contains no text and that image does not provide alternative text, a screen reader has no content to present to the user regarding the function of the link;
• Spacer image missing alternative text which presents a problem because a layout spacer image does not havean alt attribute. Spacer images are used to maintain layout. They do not convey content and should be given null/empty alternative text (alt="") so they are not presented to users and are ignored by screen readers;
• Empty or missing form labels which presents a problem because, 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 targetsfor form controls;
• Empty buttons, which present a problem because a button is empty or has no value text. When navigating to a button, descriptive text must be presented to screen reader users toindicate the function of the button;
• Empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen readerusers; and
• Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for 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, https://39dollarglasses.com/, readily accessible to and usable by visuallyimpaired 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.