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.

Washington Moran v. Ezaki Glico USA Corporation

Filed

Case details

Summary

According to the complaint, plaintiff Washington Moran, a visually-impaired individual, alleges that EZAKI GLICO USA CORPORATION has failed to make its website accessible, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The website, which offers confectionery and other goods, is claimed to have multiple access barriers that prevent blind users from fully enjoying its services. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make the website accessible and claims damages for the discrimination faced. The case is filed in the Southern District of New York, where the defendant conducts significant business.

About the defendant

Operates an online retail store offering confectionery and other goods, including information about products, pricing, terms of service, and policies.

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 multiple access barriers on the website.
  • Defendant has failed to comply with the ADA and other relevant laws.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA
  • Violations of the NYSHRL
  • Violations of the NYCHRL
  • Violation of GBL § 349

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • Permanent injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible.
  • Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights.
  • Attorney’s fees and costs.

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 offered by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.