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: A Home Goods Mobile App

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed July 20, 2020

Plaintiff's Firm: J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

WCAG 1.1.1 Non-Text ContentWCAG 2.4.3 Focus OrderWCAG 2.5.3 Label in NameWCAG 3.3.1 Error IdentificationWCAG 4.1.3 Status Messages

Case Summary

Plaintiff Windy Lucius has filed an ADA Title III complaint against a home goods mobile app in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on July 20, 2020. This action alleges that the mobile application fails to provide full and equal access to visually impaired consumers, thereby violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The complaint details specific WCAG 2.1 A and AA violations within the mobile application. These include a lack of text alternatives for non-text content (e.g., a 50% off ad not announced by VoiceOver), improper focus order and meaningful sequence (quantity field issues, size options announced as a single element), missing labels for interactive components (quantity field), and insufficient error identification for input errors (form errors not announced). Additionally, the app reportedly uses images of text (50% off mattresses ad unannounced) and lacks clear headings and labels in forms, with status messages (item added to cart) not being announced to screen reader users.

This lawsuit highlights the growing legal challenges faced by businesses operating digital platforms, such as e-commerce mobile applications. Companies in the retail and home goods sectors, or any industry offering digital services, must ensure their applications are fully accessible and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to mitigate the risk of ADA Title III litigation and ensure compliance with federal law.

Case Q&A

What specific WCAG violations is this home goods mobile app accused of?

The mobile app is accused of WCAG 2.1 A and AA violations including missing text alternatives for non-text content (1.1.1), improper focus order (2.4.3), lack of meaningful sequence for interactive elements (1.3.2), missing labels for the quantity field (2.5.3), inadequate error identification (3.3.1), use of images of text (1.4.5), unclear headings and labels in forms (2.4.6), and failure to announce status messages to screen reader users (4.1.3).

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

Windy Lucius filed this lawsuit, represented by the law firm J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC.

What legal risk does this create?

This creates a legal risk for businesses operating mobile applications, particularly in e-commerce, that fail to ensure their digital platforms are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, increasing exposure to ADA Title III litigation.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: A Home Goods Mobile 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