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.

Zachary Morris v. Recycline, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, plaintiff Zachary Morris, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Recycline, Inc. for failing to make its website, www.preserve.eco, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Morris alleges that he encountered multiple barriers while attempting to access the website to purchase a Toothbrush Lightweight Pouch, which prevented him from completing the transaction. The complaint cites various access barriers, including missing alt-text and broken links, which hinder the usability of the website for visually-impaired individuals. Morris seeks a permanent injunction requiring Recycline to comply with accessibility standards and to implement changes to ensure equal access for all users.

About the defendant

An online retailer specializing in sustainable consumer goods made from recycled and recyclable materials, offering products such as oral care, kitchenware, tableware, and travel accessories.

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 that denied him full access to 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 ADA.
  • An injunction requiring Defendant to make its website fully compliant with the ADA.
  • A declaration that Defendant’s website discriminates against the blind.
  • Certification of the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • Pre- and post-judgment interest.
  • An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees.

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.