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: Online Apparel Retailer

Case #NYED-69347697 · District Court, E.D. New York · Filed November 6, 2024

Plaintiff's Firm: SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.

WCAG 2.1 AAMissing Alt TextKeyboard NavigationScreen Reader IncompatibilityInaccessible Forms

Case Summary

Rasheta Bunting, a visually-impaired individual, initiated a lawsuit against an online apparel retailer, seeking to rectify alleged digital accessibility barriers. This action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 6, 2024, asserting that the retailer's digital storefront denies blind and visually impaired consumers equal access to its offerings, contravening federal and state disability laws.

The complaint delineates a series of precise accessibility deficiencies on the digital platform. Foremost among these are the widespread absence of alternative text on graphical elements, rendering critical images undescribed to screen reader users. Furthermore, the site featured inaccessible drop-down menus, a dearth of functional navigation links, and insufficient prompting and labeling for interactive elements like forms. A significant hurdle identified was the requirement for mouse interaction to complete transactions, effectively barring keyboard-only navigation. Specific issues included unskippable content, undifferentiated social media links, unreadable expanded FAQ answers, non-functional filter menus, and silent 'Quick Shop' buttons. Moreover, vital product details, size guides, and color selection mechanisms proved inaccessible, culminating in an inability to successfully add items to the shopping basket or modify quantities due to a lack of verbal confirmations.

This litigation underscores the increasing legal scrutiny faced by e-commerce platforms regarding digital inclusion. Online businesses that operate with similar accessibility oversights risk not only legal challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act and various state human rights laws but also alienating a significant segment of potential customers. Ensuring digital storefronts are fully navigable by assistive technologies, adhering to established guidelines like WCAG 2.1, is crucial for fostering an inclusive online marketplace and mitigating potential legal and reputational damages.

Case Q&A

What specific digital accessibility issues did the plaintiff encounter on the retail website?

The plaintiff experienced numerous barriers, including the absence of alternative text for graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus and navigation links, inadequate form labeling and prompting, and a fundamental reliance on mouse interaction. Key site features like filters, product details, size guides, and color selectors were also unusable with a screen reader.

Which legal entity is representing Rasheta Bunting in this accessibility claim?

Rasheta Bunting is represented by SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C., a law firm specializing in such matters, as indicated in the complaint.

What broader implications does this lawsuit hold for other online businesses regarding accessibility?

This case highlights the imperative for all online businesses to design and maintain their websites in compliance with digital accessibility standards like WCAG 2.1, enabling full and independent use by individuals with visual impairments. Failure to do so exposes businesses to significant legal risks and potential discrimination claims under ADA Title III and similar state laws.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: Online Apparel Retailer. 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