Cruz v. JKS Ventures, Inc.

Background

Allison Michele Cruz filed a putative class action against JKS Ventures, Inc., doing business as Incredible Pets. Cruz alleged that she is legally blind, uses screen-reading software, and could not fully access or use JKS Ventures’ website to purchase a dog toy. The alleged barriers included missing alternative text, hidden webpage elements, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels for interactive features, mouse-only functions, and broken links.

Cruz asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination by covered public accommodations, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She sought injunctive and declaratory relief under federal law and damages under the New York City law. The complaint also sought certification of a proposed class of blind and visually impaired individuals, but the court approved a non-class consent decree rather than certifying a class.

Consent-Decree History

The parties first submitted a proposed consent decree in February 2024. It required JKS Ventures to make website changes over 24 months and included provisions intended to benefit other people with vision disabilities. JKS Ventures’ counsel stated that the decree was intended to protect the company from similar or “duplicative” lawsuits.

The court questioned whether the first proposal would improperly prevent nonparties from bringing their own ADA claims without class certification. The court also identified possible collusion because the settlement had been reached quickly, with no evidence of adversarial negotiations or detailed information exchanged about the website’s alleged problems and proposed remediation.

After a hearing and supplemental submissions, the parties revised the decree. The later version identified the specific alleged access barriers, required remediation addressing those barriers, and required written reports to the court every six months during the 24-month remediation period. The final version also required the website changes to be made as soon as reasonably practicable and required the reports to address efforts to comply with applicable Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Second Circuit’s four-part review for consent decrees: whether the decree is legal, whether its terms and enforcement procedures are clear, whether it resolves the actual claims in the complaint, and whether it results from improper collusion or corruption.

Legality. The court held that the decree was within the court’s authority and within Cruz’s authority to enforce. Its requirements addressed the website-accessibility allegations and fell within the ADA’s jurisdiction and remedies. The court recognized that the decree provided limited relief and included standards such as “substantial conformity” with applicable WCAG guidelines and “reasonable efforts.” Cruz was permitted to accept those provisions as a compromise of her claims.

The court did not interpret the decree as preventing nonparties from obtaining the full relief available to them under the ADA. It held that parties cannot use a consent decree to restrict the legal rights of people who were not parties to the settlement. Other people with ADA claims could enforce the decree as third-party beneficiaries, but they could also seek different injunctive relief if the relief sought did not conflict with the decree. The court noted that JKS Ventures could have sought the broader protection of a certified class action, which would have required notice and an opportunity to object.

Clarity. The court held that the decree clearly defined JKS Ventures’ obligations and the enforcement process. It required the company, within 24 months, to modify the website to substantially conform to applicable WCAG guidelines, address Cruz’s alleged violations, and provide six-month status reports. The decree also described notice requirements, the evidence needed before alleging a violation, where notice had to be sent, and the relief available from the court.

Resolution of Claims. The court held that the decree resolved the claims in the complaint by requiring JKS Ventures to make reasonable efforts to remediate the website within 24 months. Although the remedial plan was general, the court found that it addressed the allegedly unlawful conduct described in the complaint.

Collusion. The court found evidence suggesting improper collusion in connection with the first proposed decree. However, it concluded that the final decree resulted more from cooperation after court scrutiny than from an effort to defeat third-party claims. The added requirements for specific remediation, prompt implementation, and regular reporting persuaded the court that the decree was not merely a device to obstruct other lawsuits.

Disposition

The court granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of the proposed consent decree. The opinion did not decide whether JKS Ventures violated the ADA or the New York City Human Rights Law on the merits. It approved the settlement and its compliance and enforcement provisions.