Fernandez v. Vanilla Chip, LLC

Background

Jacqueline Fernandez brought a proposed class action against Vanilla Chip, LLC. She alleged that Vanilla Chip owned, operated, and controlled an online store selling height-growth supplements, including a product called “Kids Protein Shake.” Fernandez alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software to read website content.

According to the complaint, Fernandez tried multiple times to purchase the protein shake, most recently on June 14, 2024, but could not complete the purchase because of website-accessibility barriers. She identified alleged problems including missing alternative text, hidden webpage elements, improperly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, requirements that some actions be performed only with a mouse, and broken links. She alleged that she intended to return to the website and try to purchase the product if the barriers were fixed.

Fernandez asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. She sought damages, an order requiring accessibility, and a declaration of her rights. The opinion does not decide whether the case may proceed as a certified class action.

Defendant’s Motion

Vanilla Chip moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Fernandez lacked standing, meaning that she had not shown the type of injury needed to invoke the federal court’s authority. It also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Fernandez had not stated a legally sufficient ADA claim because the website was not a “place of public accommodation.” Vanilla Chip made the same general arguments against the New York City claim.

Standing

The court held that Fernandez had adequately alleged standing. For an ADA website-accessibility claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that judicial relief would remedy the injury. The court found that Fernandez alleged a past injury because she visited the website multiple times and could not complete her desired purchase because of specifically identified accessibility barriers.

The court also found it reasonable to infer that the problem would continue because Fernandez alleged that Vanilla Chip had not removed the barriers and lacked a policy reasonably designed to make and keep the website accessible. Finally, the court found that her allegations supported an intent to return. She identified the product she wanted, explained why she wanted it, described multiple prior attempts to access the website, and identified a specific recent attempt. The court declined to treat her allegations as insufficient merely because she had filed other similar ADA website cases.

Because disability-discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law are governed by the same standing requirements as ADA claims, the court also found that Fernandez had standing for her city-law claim.

ADA Claim

To state a Title III ADA claim, a plaintiff must allege that she has a disability covered by the statute, that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant denied her a full and equal opportunity to use its services. Vanilla Chip disputed only the second element, arguing that its website was not covered because it had no connection to a physical storefront.

The court rejected that argument. It held that commercial websites that sell goods to the public are places of public accommodation under Title III, even when they do not have physical storefronts. The court relied on the statutory references to sales and service establishments, the ADA’s broad purpose of eliminating disability discrimination, and the statute’s instruction that its coverage keep pace with changing technology. The court also considered Second Circuit authority stating that Title III is not limited to physical access and protects disabled people’s equal access to a public accommodation’s goods and services.

The court acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court and the Second Circuit had not directly resolved whether a standalone commercial website is a place of public accommodation, and that courts elsewhere had reached different conclusions. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the ADA covers Vanilla Chip’s sales through its website and that Fernandez had adequately alleged a denial of equal access.

Disposition

The court denied Vanilla Chip’s motion to dismiss the complaint. It denied the motion under Rule 12(b)(1) as to standing and rejected the Rule 12(b)(6) argument that the complaint failed to state an ADA claim. The court also concluded that Fernandez stated a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. The ruling leaves the complaint in the case; it is not a final determination that Vanilla Chip violated the ADA or city law.