Received a Demand Letter? Get Immediate Defense Help →

Informational only — not legal advice. Data from public PACER/CourtListener records. Full disclaimer →

ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: Mobile Restaurant App

Case #FL-16846842 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed February 14, 2020

Plaintiff's Firm: J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

WCAG 2.1 AWCAG 2.1 AAScreen Reader IncompatibilityKeyboard AccessibilityMissing LabelsName Role ValueStatus Messages

Case Summary

Windy Lucius, a legally blind individual, has initiated legal proceedings against the operator of a mobile restaurant application. Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 14, 2020, the complaint asserts violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging the defendant's app is not fully accessible to visually impaired consumers using assistive technologies.

The lawsuit specifically outlines several critical failures to adhere to WCAG 2.1 A and AA guidelines. These include the mobile application's inability to properly integrate with Apple's VoiceOver screen reader software, presenting digital barriers to navigation and functionality. Notable issues cited are a lack of keyboard accessibility (WCAG 2.1.1), where expanded food item sections function as a single element, preventing access to individual choices. Additionally, essential elements like edit and delete icons lack appropriate labels or instructions (WCAG 3.3.2), and the Name, Role, Value of certain elements, particularly visually represented radio buttons, are improperly announced (WCAG 4.1.2). Further non-compliance involves unclear headings and labels for search and clear icons (WCAG 2.4.6) and the absence of announced status messages for actions like adding items to a cart (WCAG 4.1.3), leaving VoiceOver users without critical feedback.

This litigation underscores a significant legal exposure for businesses that offer digital platforms, such as mobile applications, in conjunction with their brick-and-mortar operations. Companies across various industries must proactively ensure their apps are designed and maintained to be fully usable by individuals with disabilities, avoiding similar allegations of discriminatory practices. Failing to implement robust accessibility features can lead to similar lawsuits, demanding injunctive relief and policy modifications to achieve ADA compliance and provide equal access to goods and services for all patrons.

Case Q&A

What specific accessibility deficiencies were cited in the mobile app?

The mobile application was alleged to have various accessibility deficiencies, including improper integration with VoiceOver, a lack of keyboard accessibility (WCAG 2.1.1), missing labels and instructions for interactive elements (WCAG 3.3.2), incorrect Name, Role, Value announcements for interface components (WCAG 4.1.2), unclear headings and labels for icons (WCAG 2.4.6), and a failure to announce status messages (WCAG 4.1.3).

Who is the plaintiff and which law firm represents her in this action?

The plaintiff in this case is Windy Lucius, an individual who is legally blind. She is represented by the law firm J. Courtney Cunningham, PLLC.

What broader implications does this legal challenge present for businesses with digital platforms?

This complaint highlights a significant risk for any entity operating a mobile app or similar digital platform, especially those linked to physical public accommodations. It emphasizes the necessity for these platforms to be fully compliant with ADA Title III and WCAG standards to ensure equal access for disabled users, thereby mitigating potential discrimination lawsuits and ensuring broad usability.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: Mobile Restaurant App. Ask me about the plaintiff's law firm, the specific WCAG violations at risk, or how to protect your business. I cite real lawsuit patterns — not generic advice.

Not legal advice — informational intelligence only.

TDARI is not a law firm. Responses are AI-generated intelligence, not legal advice. Disclaimer