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 Orlando Spa Facility

Case #FLMD-69441347 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Filed December 5, 2024

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

WCAG 2.0 Level AAScreen Reader IncompatibilityMissing Labels/DescriptionsKeyboard Navigation IssuesAccessibility Statement Missing

Case Summary

Victor Ariza has brought a federal lawsuit against an online spa services provider, filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, on December 5, 2024. The plaintiff, who is blind and visually disabled, alleges the digital platform failed to meet accessibility standards, thereby discriminating against individuals with disabilities under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Represented by RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. and LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A., Mr. Ariza seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy these access barriers.

The complaint specifically outlines numerous accessibility deficiencies impacting visually disabled users. Allegations include inaccessible cost information for services, a telephone number presented without sufficient descriptive context, and improperly labeled operating hours. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that extensive text content across the site is inadequately marked, causing screen reader software to bypass crucial details. There is also an alleged absence of a clear accessibility notice, policy, or even the universal symbol for accessibility, which would otherwise direct users to pertinent information. These failures collectively signify a lack of compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA or higher, denying effective communication and equal access.

This litigation underscores the increasing legal scrutiny faced by businesses operating digital platforms that fail to accommodate disabled users. Entities offering public-facing websites, particularly those with a nexus to physical accommodations like spa facilities, must ensure their online presence is fully accessible to prevent claims of discrimination under the ADA. The ongoing nature of such violations, as alleged in this case, highlights a persistent risk for any organization that has not proactively implemented comprehensive web accessibility policies, coordinator roles, testing programs, and staff training to adhere to established guidelines and foster inclusive digital environments.

Case Q&A

How did the spa facility's website fall short of accessibility standards?

The complaint details several critical accessibility failures, including inaccessible cost information, inadequately described telephone numbers, improperly labeled operating hours, and pervasive improperly labeled text that bypasses screen readers. Additionally, the website lacked an accessibility policy or the universal symbol for disabled access.

Who filed this accessibility lawsuit and which legal team is representing them?

Victor Ariza, a blind and visually disabled individual, initiated this legal action. He is represented by the legal expertise of RODERICK V. HANNAH, ES

, P.

and LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.

What broader implications does this case have for online businesses linked to physical establishments?

This lawsuit serves as a significant reminder that digital platforms, especially those connected to brick-and-mortar public accommodations, must adhere to ADA Title III requirements. Businesses risk legal challenges if their websites do not provide full and equal access to all users, necessitating proactive measures for web accessibility compliance.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Orlando Spa Facility. 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