ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: an online craft and fabric retailer
Plaintiff's Firm: ACACIA BARROS, P.A.
Case Summary
Aishia Petersen, represented by ACACIA BARROS, P.A., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, Miami Division on October 4, 2020, alleging that an online craft and fabric retailer's website is not accessible to visually impaired individuals.
The complaint specifically alleges several WCAG 2.0 violations, including 'a' elements lacking alt attributes (F89), input fields needing accessible names (F86), 'area' elements lacking accessible names (F65), duplicate IDs used on multiple elements (A 4.11), and HTML form controls lacking accessible names (F68). These issues reportedly create digital source code barriers that prevent screen-readers from functioning correctly.
This case highlights the ongoing legal risks for online retailers and other public accommodations whose websites are not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Businesses operating e-commerce platforms must ensure their digital interfaces comply with ADA Title III regulations to avoid similar lawsuits, as lack of accessibility can lead to denial of full and equal access to services and goods.
Unlock Full Intelligence Report
Obtain the technical WCAG violation analysis, target metadata, and legal stakes for Case #.
Case Q&A
What specific WCAG violations is this online craft and fabric retailer accused of?
The lawsuit alleges WCAG 2.0 F89 (missing alt text for 'a' elements), F86 (missing accessible names for input fields), F65 (missing accessible names for 'area' elements), A 4.11 (duplicate IDs), and F68 (missing accessible names for HTML form controls), among other digital barriers.
Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?
The lawsuit was filed by Aishia Petersen, represented by the law firm ACACIA BARROS, P.
What legal risk does this create?
This case reinforces the legal precedent that e-commerce websites must be accessible under ADA Title III. Businesses that fail to provide auxiliary aids and services, such as compatible screen-reader software, risk injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs for denying disabled individuals equal access to their online services and physical locations linked to the website.