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.

Lucius v. Petsmart, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Summary

On February 24, 2020, Windy Lucius filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against Petsmart, Inc.. Plaintiff Windy Lucius alleges that The business has a website, www.petsmart.com, however, this case concerns the company's mobile app. is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Petsmart is an international retailer of pets, pet foods, pet supplies, and related pet accessories.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • App did not integrate with Plaintiff’s software, nor was there any function within the app to permit access for visually impaired individuals through other means.
  • A visible label is not programmatically associated with the buttons, so the user hears the same name repeated three times.
  • The text on the image which informs the user that they get 5% off is not accessible for VoiceOver users.

Legal claims

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

  • Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 app is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals;
  • 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 brings its app into fullcompliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its app is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for aperiod to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law;
  • Payment of costs of suit;
  • Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505; and,
  • The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate.