Wahab v. Surya Nature, Inc.

Background

Angela Wahab brought a proposed class action against Surya Nature, Inc. She alleged that Surya Nature’s website, which sells natural, plant-based hair and skin care products, was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). She also asserted a claim for declaratory relief and sought injunctive relief and damages.

Wahab alleged that she visited the website on December 29, 2023, and January 1, 2024, because she wanted to purchase a particular hair dye. She alleged that the website contained barriers including missing alternative text, hidden webpage elements, improperly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels, mouse-only functions, and broken links. She alleged that she could not use the website to buy the hair dye and stated that she intended to return if the website became accessible.

Surya Nature moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Wahab lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because she lacked standing. It also argued that her claims were moot because the website had become compliant with the ADA. The court had previously allowed Wahab to amend her complaint to address the standing arguments and warned that she would not receive another opportunity to amend.

Standing analysis

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show an injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court can likely remedy. Because Wahab sought an injunction, she also had to show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

The court held that Wahab’s amended complaint did not plausibly allege an injury in fact. It found that the complaint largely used generic, copied allegations about common website-access barriers. Although Wahab identified a product she wanted to purchase and added allegations about her interest in natural hair dye, the court found those details insufficient in the context of the complaint’s boilerplate allegations.

The court emphasized that Wahab did not allege that she personally encountered most of the listed barriers. Her allegation about a broken “link of interest” was unspecified. She did not identify which pages or elements were inaccessible, explain how those alleged defects injured her, or provide particular facts showing that the barriers affected her personally. The court also found that her statement that she intended to return if the website became accessible was a legal conclusion rather than a sufficiently supported factual allegation.

Other claims and disposition

The court held that the NYCHRL claim was subject to the same standing requirements as the ADA claim. Because Wahab lacked standing for the ADA claim, the court dismissed the NYCHRL claim for lack of standing as well.

The court also dismissed the third cause of action for declaratory relief because a request for a declaratory judgment is not an independent cause of action. The court determined that Wahab was not entitled to amend again because she had already received an opportunity to amend and had been warned that it was her last opportunity.

The court granted Surya Nature’s motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed, without leave to amend and without prejudice, for lack of standing. The court did not reach Surya Nature’s mootness argument.