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: An Online Beverage Retailer

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed February 10, 2023

Plaintiff's Firm: RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. and LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A.

WCAG 2.0 AA Non-ComplianceUnlabeled Links/ElementsInaccessible Store LocatorIncomplete Information DescriptionsIndistinguishable Pricing Information

Case Summary

Victor Ariza has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 10, 2023, against an alcohol and spirits retailer. The plaintiff alleges that the retailer's e-commerce website is not fully accessible to blind and visually disabled individuals, thereby violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses, alongside claims for trespass against the plaintiff's personal property related to website tracking software.

The lawsuit specifically details several digital accessibility barriers encountered by the plaintiff using screen reader software. These include improperly labeled links, such as shopping cart links, and a mislabeled logo that fails to convey its function as a homepage link. The website's store locator feature, including physical addresses, is inaccessible, and telephone numbers provided lack full descriptive context for screen readers. Furthermore, product images contain pricing text where original and sale prices are indistinguishable, and an "accessibility" statement on the homepage proved ineffective and inaccessible to visually impaired users. The complaint asserts that the website does not conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA or higher standards.

This action highlights the ongoing legal risks for businesses operating public-facing websites that fail to adhere to digital accessibility standards. Such businesses, particularly those with a nexus to physical public accommodations, must ensure their online platforms provide effective communication and equal access to goods, services, and information for all users, including those with visual disabilities. Failure to implement reasonable modifications and provide auxiliary aids and services to achieve WCAG compliance can lead to similar lawsuits, demanding significant investment in remediation and legal costs.

Case Q&A

What specific WCAG violations is this online beverage retailer accused of?

The online beverage retailer is accused of having improperly labeled links, a mislabeled logo for the homepage, inaccessible store locator information and physical addresses, telephone numbers lacking full descriptions for screen readers, and product image text where original and sale prices are indistinguishable. The website's accessibility statement was also inaccessible, and the platform does not meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA standards.

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

Victor Ariza filed this lawsuit, and he is represented by the law firms Roderick V. Hannah, Es

, P.

and Law Office of Pelayo Duran, P.

What legal risk does this create?

This case demonstrates the legal vulnerability for businesses whose websites do not provide equal access for disabled individuals, particularly those with visual impairments, under ADA Title III. Non-compliant digital platforms risk lawsuits demanding injunctive relief, costly remediation efforts, and financial penalties for failing to meet web accessibility standards like WCAG 2.0 Level A

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Online Beverage Retail.... 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