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 jewelry store chain

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed October 17, 2022

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

Mislabeled Homepage LogoInaccessible Contact InformationMislabeled Interactive ElementsScreen Reader Form IncompatibilityWCAG 2.0 Level AA Compliance Failure

Case Summary

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA has filed an ADA Title III website accessibility lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against a Florida-based jewelry store chain on October 17, 2022. The complaint alleges that the defendant's website contains numerous access barriers preventing blind and visually disabled users from full and equal enjoyment, thereby denying them equal access to its goods, services, privileges, and advantages.

The specific WCAG violations alleged in the complaint include a mislabeled home page/company logo, inaccessible telephone numbers in both the header and footer, search and shopping cart buttons mislabeled as “link”, social media buttons at the footer mislabeled as “link”, and a “back to top” button also mislabeled as “link”. Furthermore, the website reportedly lacks prompting information for online forms, an accessibility notice or policy, and fails to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

This lawsuit highlights the significant legal risk for similar brick-and-mortar retailers with an online presence if their websites are not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Businesses are advised to ensure their digital platforms comply with ADA Title III and WCAG standards to avoid potential litigation for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

Case Q&A

What specific WCAG violations is this jewelry store chain accused of?

The lawsuit alleges several WCAG violations, including a mislabeled home page/company logo, inaccessible telephone numbers, search and shopping cart buttons mislabeled as “link”, social media buttons mislabeled as “link”, and a “back to top” button mislabeled as “link”. The website also lacks necessary prompting information for online forms and an accessibility notice, and fails to meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA standards.

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA filed this lawsuit, represented by the law firm RODERICK V. HANNAH, ES

What legal risk does this create?

This case underscores the legal risk faced by brick-and-mortar businesses with an online presence if their websites are not fully accessible to disabled users. It suggests that non-compliant businesses may be subject to ADA Title III lawsuits seeking injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and other costs.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: a jewelry store chain. 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