ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: an online greenhouse and garden supplier
Plaintiff's Firm: GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
Case Summary
Marcos Calcano, a visually-impaired individual, initiated legal proceedings against an online greenhouse and garden supplier in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 14, 2026. The complaint alleges that the digital platform fails to meet crucial accessibility standards, thereby denying blind and low-vision users equivalent access to its products and services, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit meticulously outlines numerous accessibility barriers encountered by Mr. Calcano, including an pervasive lack of alternative text for graphical elements and linked images, rendering visual content incomprehensible to screen readers. Additionally, the platform featured empty links lacking descriptive text and redundant links that created confusing navigation paths. Further technical deficiencies cited encompass the inability of screen-reading software to process website content into accessible text, inconsistent or missing title frames for identification, and the absence of equivalent text for scripts. Structural issues such as content not conveyed beyond visual presentation, inability to resize text without losing functionality, enforced time limits without user control, and web pages lacking descriptive titles were also highlighted. Crucially, the keyboard-operable interface lacked a discernible focus indicator, the default human language was not programmatically determined, and changing user interface component settings led to unadvised context changes. The complaint also noted the absence of labels or instructions for user input fields, markup language errors, inaccessible Portable Document Format (PDF) files, and non-programmatically determined user interface elements.
This action underscores significant legal exposure for businesses operating digital storefronts or interactive websites that fail to prioritize universal accessibility. The Department of Justice's longstanding interpretation, reinforced by judicial precedent, affirms that ADA Title III extends to online public accommodations, mandating equal access for individuals with disabilities. Companies that do not adopt and rigorously adhere to established web accessibility guidelines, such as WCAG 2.0, risk similar litigation, potential injunctive relief, and compensatory damages, as consumers increasingly expect and legally demand fully inclusive online experiences.
Unlock Full Intelligence Report
Obtain the technical WCAG violation analysis, target metadata, and legal stakes for Case #NY-74787254.
Case Q&A
What specific digital accessibility issues did the plaintiff encounter on the website?
The plaintiff experienced multiple barriers, including the absence of alternative text for images and non-text elements, empty and redundant links, content that screen readers could not process, and web pages lacking proper titles. Further issues involved insufficient keyboard navigation support, unidentifiable human language, and errors in markup language, all contributing to an inaccessible user experience on the online platform.
Who is the plaintiff and which law firm represents them in this action?
The plaintiff in this case is Marcos Calcano, who is visually-impaired and legally blind. He is represented by the law firm Gottlieb & Associates PLLC, which is based in New York.
What broader implications does this lawsuit hold for other businesses with an online presence?
This case highlights the imperative for all businesses operating websites or digital platforms to ensure full accessibility for disabled users under ADA Title III. Failure to comply with recognized standards like WCAG 2.0 can lead to similar lawsuits, necessitating costly remediation, and potentially resulting in significant legal liabilities, including injunctive relief and damages.