Velazquez v. The Spice & Tea Exchange Distribution, LLC

Background

Bryan Velazquez alleged that he is legally blind and needs screen-reading software to read internet content. He claimed that The Spice & Tea Exchange Distribution, LLC operates a website selling products throughout the United States, but that the website lacked accessibility features, such as alternative text, needed for visually impaired users.

According to the amended complaint, Velazquez visited the website on June 15, 2022, intending to buy an organic green tea gift box, but could not use the website because of accessibility barriers. He made another attempted purchase on July 5, 2022, and allegedly encountered the same barriers. He represented that he intended to return if the website became accessible.

The amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Motion to Dismiss and Report

Spice & Tea moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear a type of dispute. Spice & Tea argued that Velazquez lacked standing because he had not plausibly shown an injury or a likelihood of future injury. It also argued that the case was moot because the company had taken steps to make the website comply with Website Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1.

The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger. Judge Lehrburger recommended denying the motion. He concluded that Velazquez had adequately alleged standing because he claimed that the website deterred him from equal access, had encountered the same barriers on two visits, and intended to return based on his interest in Spice & Tea’s products.

Judge Lehrburger also concluded that the case was not moot. Although Spice & Tea submitted affidavits and vendor reports stating that the website was compliant, the submissions did not provide enough detail about the audits, the methods used, the problems found, or the specific fixes made. The magistrate judge determined that Spice & Tea had not shown that it was absolutely clear that the alleged accessibility problems could not reasonably recur.

District Court’s Review

Spice & Tea objected, arguing that Judge Lehrburger had misapplied the law governing standing and mootness. Judge Gardephe reviewed the objections under the standards governing reports and recommendations. The court concluded that the standing objection largely repeated arguments made in the original motion and found no clear error in Judge Lehrburger’s analysis.

The court also rejected Spice & Tea’s mootness objection. Judge Gardephe explained that a company official’s affidavit or declaration may be enough to show that a website-accessibility case is moot, but the submission must describe in some detail the remediation performed and why the measures will prevent future accessibility problems. The court found that Spice & Tea’s materials did not meet that standard because they did not adequately explain the remediation measures, audit methods, or findings.

Disposition

Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied Spice & Tea’s motion to dismiss. The opinion resolved the jurisdictional motion; it did not decide whether Spice & Tea ultimately violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York City Human Rights Law.