Rendon v. Extreme Networks, Inc.

Background

Rusty Rendon and John Panarese sued Extreme Networks, Inc., alleging that its website violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs alleged that they are blind or visually impaired and use Apple computers with VoiceOver screen-reading technology. They claimed that Extreme Networks’ website contained access barriers, including improperly labeled headings, confusing or unhelpful links, missing alternative text, empty form labels, empty buttons, and empty links.

The plaintiffs said they visited the website in August 2022 and October 2022, respectively, to obtain information about Extreme Networks’ products, services, business, and investment information. They alleged that they remained hopeful the barriers would be fixed and intended to return to the website to obtain information about the company. The amended complaint also described them as disability-rights “testers” and sought injunctive relief, a declaration, damages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Defendant’s Motion

Extreme Networks moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the plaintiffs lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because they lacked standing. It also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. The court resolved the motion under Rule 12(b)(1).

Standing Analysis

To establish constitutional standing, the plaintiffs had to allege an injury that was concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to Extreme Networks; and likely to be remedied by a court order. For website-access claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court applied the factors used in the Second Circuit: whether the plaintiffs alleged a past injury, whether the discriminatory treatment would likely continue, and whether the allegations reasonably showed that they intended to return.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not establish a concrete and particularized past injury. Although they listed access barriers, they did not explain specifically what they hoped to learn from the website, how the barriers prevented them from accomplishing their goals, or why they became interested in potentially investing in Extreme Networks. The court stated that merely encountering website barriers is not enough to show a concrete injury beyond the alleged statutory violation.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an intent to return. Their statements that they intended to return after the barriers were fixed did not include sufficient information about the frequency or details of their past visits, why they wanted to return, or when they planned to do so. The court treated these statements as insufficient “some-day” intentions rather than concrete plans showing an actual or imminent injury.

The plaintiffs argued that they suffered a dignitary injury, meaning harm from the stigma or unequal treatment associated with discrimination. The court rejected that argument because the plaintiffs had not alleged a concrete harm beyond the claimed statutory violation. The plaintiffs also alleged an informational injury, but the court found that they did not identify with sufficient specificity the information they sought or allege downstream consequences from failing to receive it, such as an effect on a decision to buy stock.

The court noted that the plaintiffs had filed more than 300 website-access actions since 2019 and that their complaints were substantially similar. Their amended complaint contained an apparent reference to another company, which the court viewed as an error showing that the allegations were copied or mass-produced. The court said this further undermined the plausibility of their alleged injury, although it emphasized that being an ADA tester does not automatically eliminate or establish standing.

Disposition

The court granted Extreme Networks’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Because the ruling rested on lack of standing, the court did not reach the defendant’s separate Rule 12(b)(6) argument. The court allowed any motion for leave to amend to be filed by April 11, 2025, with the proposed second amended complaint attached. If no such motion was filed, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to close the case.