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 Footwear Retailer

Case #FLMD-68067981 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Filed December 6, 2023

Plaintiff's Firm: ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC

Missing Alt TextKeyboard Focus IndicatorInaccessible PDFsUnclear Interactive LabelsBroken Links

Case Summary

Shawn Gettinger, a visually-impaired individual, initiated a federal lawsuit on December 6, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. This action targets an online retailer specializing in footwear and western-themed apparel, asserting that its website unlawfully denies access to blind and visually-impaired users under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gettinger, represented by Zeig Law Firm, LLC, contends that the digital platform's lack of accessibility prevented him from independently browsing products and completing a desired purchase.

The complaint meticulously details a range of alleged WCAG violations impacting the website's usability for screen-reader users. Specific barriers cited include the absence of text equivalents for non-text elements, the omission of title frames for navigation, and a failure to provide equivalent text when scripts were deployed. Further, forms lacked the same functionality as for sighted users, and content structure was not conveyed beyond its visual presentation. The document also highlights issues such as inability to resize text without losing functionality, enforced time limits without user control, missing descriptive page titles, unclear link purposes, non-discernible keyboard focus indicators, undeclared human languages, unexpected context changes, inaccessible PDFs, and fundamental markup errors. Additionally, the plaintiff encountered missing alt-text, hidden elements, improperly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, vague interactive labels, and broken links that screen-reading software failed to communicate effectively.

This legal challenge underscores a significant and ongoing risk for businesses that maintain an online presence without prioritizing digital accessibility. Organizations, particularly those in retail with interconnected physical and digital operations, are increasingly being held accountable for ensuring their websites conform to established guidelines like WCAG 2.1. A failure to proactively implement and continually monitor accessibility measures not only violates federal law but can result in costly litigation, highlighting the crucial need for comprehensive accessibility strategies to serve all potential customers equitably.

Case Q&A

What specific accessibility barriers were reported on the retailer's digital platform?

The complaint identifies numerous barriers, including missing alt-text, inaccessible Portable Document Format (PDFs), unclear interactive labels, and a lack of proper keyboard focus indicators. It also cites issues with broken links that screen readers could not properly convey, and the absence of text equivalents for non-text elements.

Who is the plaintiff in this case and which law firm is representing them?

The plaintiff is Shawn Gettinger, a visually-impaired individual. He is represented by the ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC.

What broader legal implications does this lawsuit present for companies with online services?

This action serves as a strong reminder that businesses offering goods and services via websites must ensure their platforms are accessible to individuals with disabilities, in compliance with ADA Title III. Neglecting web accessibility standards can lead to similar lawsuits, emphasizing the necessity of proactive adherence to guidelines like WCAG 2.1.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Online Footwear 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