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 luxury fashion e-commerce site

Case # · District Court, S.D. Florida · Filed July 1, 2024

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

ADA Title III Website AccessibilityWCAG 2.1 AA ComplianceKeyboard Navigation FailureMissing Text AlternativesForm Field Labels & States

Case Summary

Oscar Herrera, represented by RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. and LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 1, 2024, against a luxury fashion e-commerce site. The complaint alleges that the defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent visually disabled individuals, including the plaintiff, from fully and equally using the digital platform, thereby violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The complaint details several WCAG 2.1 Level A violations. These include issues with non-text content, where interactive buttons (such as for 'Google Sign-In' and 'Sign-in with Apple') and images lack proper announcements or descriptive text, along with unlabeled countdown numbers and inaccessible content within size guides. Furthermore, the lawsuit cites focus order failures, noting that keyboard navigation is illogical, often returning to the auto-rotating banner and failing to shift focus into expanded menu or FAQ sections. The complaint also highlights problems with labels and instructions, as quantity fields announce extraneous information, and interactive elements like 'Add to wish list' and product size selection buttons fail to announce their selected states, instead announcing 'unchecked'.

This action underscores the significant legal risks for businesses, especially online fashion retailers that operate adjunct websites connected to physical public accommodations. The lawsuit emphasizes that failure to implement reasonable modifications and provide necessary auxiliary aids for effective communication on digital platforms can lead to claims of discrimination under ADA Title III, potentially resulting in court-ordered injunctive relief and attorney's fees to remedy ongoing accessibility barriers.

Case Q&A

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

The online fashion retailer is accused of multiple WCAG 2.1 Level A violations, including issues with non-text content where images and interactive buttons lack proper labels or announcements. It also cites problems with unlabeled countdown numbers and inaccessible size guides. Further violations involve focus order failures, where keyboard navigation is illogical, such as returning to banners and skipping expanded menu or FAQ content. Lastly, interactive elements like quantity and product selection buttons are alleged to not announce their selected state or provide appropriate labels.

Who filed this lawsuit, and which law firm?

This lawsuit was filed by Oscar Herrer

, P.

and LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.

What legal risk does this create?

This lawsuit demonstrates the legal exposure for businesses, particularly online fashion retailers with physical locations, if their websites are not fully accessible to disabled users under ADA Title III. Failure to implement reasonable modifications and provide auxiliary aids, such as screen reader compatibility, can lead to claims of discrimination and require court-ordered injunctive relief to ensure equal access and effective communication.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: a luxury fashion e-commer.... 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