Cruz v. JKS Ventures, Inc.

Background

Allison Michele Cruz, who is legally blind and uses screen-reading software, sued JKS Ventures, Inc., doing business as Incredible Pets, over the accessibility of its website. Cruz alleged that the website prevented her from fully accessing online goods, content, and services and kept her from completing a purchase. She identified barriers including missing alternative text, hidden page elements, improperly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, mouse-only functions, and broken links.

Cruz asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 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. She filed the action as a proposed class action on behalf of blind and visually impaired individuals, but the opinion describes the approved resolution as a non-class consent decree.

Proposed Consent Decrees

The parties first submitted a proposed consent decree that required JKS Ventures to work toward website accessibility and stated that people with vision disabilities would be third-party beneficiaries. The defendant acknowledged that one purpose was to protect it from similar lawsuits by other potential plaintiffs. The court questioned whether the proposal would improperly restrict nonparties’ rights without class certification and noted concerns about the speed of the settlement, the lack of evidence of adversarial negotiations, and the absence of sufficient enforcement and remediation safeguards.

The parties then revised the proposal. The final decree requires JKS Ventures to modify the website within 24 months of the decree’s effective date so that it substantially conforms to applicable Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and is accessible to people with vision disabilities. It specifically requires changes addressing the barriers alleged by Cruz. The decree also requires changes to be made as soon as reasonably practicable and requires written reports to the court every six months during the remediation period. It contains procedures for notice, evidence, dispute resolution, and enforcement.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Second Circuit’s standards for reviewing consent decrees: whether the decree is legal, whether its terms and enforcement mechanism are clear, whether it resolves the claims in the complaint, and whether it resulted from improper collusion or corruption.

The court held that the decree was legal because the relief fell within the ADA claims and the remedies allowed by that statute. Although the decree’s protections and remediation obligations were limited in some respects, the court concluded that Cruz could agree to those terms as a compromise. The court also held that the decree did not bind nonparties, restrict their ADA rights, or require them to accept only the relief available under the decree. Other people could enforce the decree as third-party beneficiaries and could seek different injunctive relief if the defendant remained out of compliance, so long as that relief did not conflict with the decree. The court noted that class certification could have provided a different way to bind similarly situated people, but the parties had not taken that route.

The court found the decree sufficiently clear because it defined JKS Ventures’ obligations, the remediation deadline, the reporting requirements, and the enforcement process. It also found that the decree addressed the actual website-accessibility claims in Cruz’s complaint. Although the court had found evidence suggesting improper collusion in connection with the first proposal, it concluded that the subsequent revisions showed cooperation aimed at carrying out remediation rather than collusion to defeat third-party claims.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of the proposed consent decree. The opinion approved the settlement resolution; it did not determine whether JKS Ventures was liable for the alleged ADA or New York City Human Rights Law violations after litigation on the merits.