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 fine jewelry retailer

Case #FLMD-17424038 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Filed August 7, 2020

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

WCAG 2.0 AAMissing Alt TextForm AccessibilityScreen Reader IncompatibilityKeyboard Navigation

Case Summary

Visually disabled plaintiff Wanda Koehn, a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida, initiated legal proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on August 7, 2020. Represented by Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A., Ms. Koehn filed a complaint against an online fine jewelry retailer, asserting violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit centers on the inaccessibility of the retailer's digital platform, which serves both as a direct sales channel and an extension of its physical store operations.

The complaint precisely enumerates a range of critical accessibility barriers plaguing the defendant's website. Key issues include site information, such as phone numbers, that were improperly labeled, encountering empty form fields, and content presentation that resulted in a loss of information or structural integrity when accessed via assistive technologies. Furthermore, the platform featured mislabeled descriptions for image content, lacked crucial prompting information for online forms, and failed to adequately support screen reader software, thereby precluding visually disabled individuals from comprehensive interaction. These significant deficiencies collectively indicate non-conformance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA.

This litigation underscores a persistent and widespread challenge for businesses operating digital platforms that directly support or integrate with their physical retail presence. The demand for equitable access for all users means that any organization offering online services, merchandise, or information, especially those with a direct nexus to a brick-and-mortar location, faces considerable legal exposure if their websites are not designed to be fully navigable by individuals with disabilities. Ensuring compliance with ADA Title III and established accessibility standards is not merely a legal obligation but a fundamental requirement for inclusive market participation, emphasizing the need for proactive digital remediation to mitigate potential lawsuits and broaden customer reach.

Case Q&A

What specific digital barriers did the plaintiff encounter when trying to access the fine jewelry retailer's website?

The plaintiff encountered several significant accessibility barriers, including inadequately labeled site information like phone numbers, empty form fields, content presentation that compromised structure and information for screen readers, and mislabeled descriptions for images, all of which prevented effective use of the digital platform.

Which legal counsel represented the visually disabled plaintiff in this federal accessibility case?

Roderick V. Hannah, Es

, P.

, served as legal counsel for the plaintiff, Wanda Koehn, in this action filed in the Middle District of Florid

What broader implications does this lawsuit hold for businesses with both online and physical presences regarding digital accessibility?

This case highlights the imperative for businesses with retail stores and complementary websites to ensure their digital platforms meet ADA Title III requirements, as online extensions of physical accommodations must also provide full and equal access to individuals with disabilities, or risk similar legal challenges.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: an online fine jewelry re.... 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