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: Online Footwear and Accessories Retailer

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed May 20, 2022

Plaintiff's Firm: RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.

WCAG 2.0 Level AAScreen Reader IncompatibilityKeyboard Navigation FailureMislabeled ElementsInaccessible Forms/Shopping Cart

Case Summary

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA has filed an ADA Title III website accessibility lawsuit against an online footwear and accessories retailer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 20, 2022. The plaintiff, represented by RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A., alleges that the retailer's e-commerce website is not fully accessible to blind and visually disabled individuals who rely on screen reader software. The complaint highlights that the website, which serves as an extension of and gateway to the retailer's physical stores, contains numerous barriers preventing effective communication and equal access.

Specifically, the complaint details several WCAG violations, including a mislabeled home page button/company logo, inaccessible submenus when navigating with a keyboard, an inaccessible "View All Colors" option during product browsing, and inaccessible item price, subtotal, shipping standard, sales tax, and order total within the shopping cart. Furthermore, the website fails to provide notification when an item is removed from the shopping cart, offers shipping options that are not fully accessible, displays text that is not properly labeled, mislabels the size width option as “cap M”, and does not label the notification that an item has been added to the shopping cart. The plaintiff also notes the absence of an effectively accessible "accessibility" statement or contact information for disabled users.

This lawsuit underscores the significant legal risk faced by online retailers and other businesses whose websites are considered places of public accommodation under ADA Title III. Failure to implement reasonable modifications and provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication for visually disabled users can lead to similar litigation, demands for injunctive relief, and the necessity of establishing comprehensive web accessibility policies, training, and regular audits to ensure compliance with WCAG standards and prevent ongoing discrimination.

Case Q&A

What specific WCAG violations is this online footwear and accessories retailer accused of?

The online footwear and accessories retailer is accused of having a mislabeled home page button/company logo, inaccessible submenus, an inaccessible "View All Colors" option, inaccessible shopping cart details (item price, subtotal, shipping, tax, total), no notification for item removal, inaccessible shipping options, improperly labeled text, mislabeled size width option ("cap M"), and an unlabelled shopping cart addition notification.

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

This lawsuit was filed by VICTOR ARIZA, and the law firm representing the plaintiff is RODERICK V. HANNAH, ES

What legal risk does this create?

This case highlights the legal risk for businesses operating e-commerce websites that serve as extensions of physical public accommodations. Non-compliance with ADA Title III and WCAG standards can lead to lawsuits, requiring injunctive relief to remediate access barriers, implement accessibility policies, conduct audits, and potentially incur attorney's fees and costs.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: Online Footwear and Acces.... 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