Wahab v. Evolutions Hair Salon, LLC

Background

Angela Wahab, a visually impaired and legally blind individual, sued Evolutions Hair Salon, LLC on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She alleged that the defendant’s website, www.curlevolution.com, had access barriers that interfered with screen-reading software and prevented her from completing an attempted purchase of Olaplex Shampoo. The alleged barriers included missing alternative text, hidden webpage elements, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels, mouse-only functions, and broken links.

Wahab asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. She sought damages, a permanent injunction, and declaratory relief. The opinion states that Wahab had filed 67 lawsuits in the Southern District of New York during the previous two years, including this case, and that all involved ADA claims.

Defendant’s Motion

Evolutions Hair Salon moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It argued that Wahab lacked standing, that her ADA claim was moot because the alleged violations had been remedied, that the complaint failed to state a claim, that she could not recover civil damages under the New York City Human Rights Law, and that her declaratory-relief claim duplicated her other claims.

Standing Analysis

Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For an ADA website-accessibility claim, the court applied a three-part test requiring allegations of a past ADA injury, a reasonable basis to infer that the discriminatory treatment would continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff would continue accessing the website.

The court found that Wahab failed to adequately allege the first requirement. Although she listed seven types of access barriers, she did not identify which barriers appeared on which parts of the website, explain how particular barriers prevented her from navigating the website, or state when she encountered them. The court concluded that a plaintiff must personally encounter the access barrier causing the alleged injury, not merely allege that barriers existed.

The court also found that Wahab failed to satisfy the third requirement. Her complaint said that she intended to return to the website to purchase the shampoo, but it did not allege that the shampoo was uniquely made, manufactured, or distributed by the defendant. The court therefore found that the complaint did not adequately explain why she would need to return to this website, especially in light of her other lawsuits containing similar language. The court did not consider her argument that she intended to sign up for the defendant’s newsletter because that argument appeared for the first time in her opposition brief rather than in the complaint.

The court stated that Wahab’s status as a frequent litigant alone did not require dismissal. Instead, it relied on its conclusion that her allegations of injury were vague and copied from similar complaints.

Other Claims and Requested Relief

Because the court found no standing to bring the ADA claim, it also dismissed Wahab’s New York City Human Rights Law claim, which the court said was subject to the same standing requirements. It dismissed the declaratory-relief claim because a request for a declaration is not an independent legal claim and the underlying ADA claim had been dismissed.

The court declined to rule on the defendant’s remaining arguments after resolving standing in the defendant’s favor. Thus, the opinion did not decide whether the alleged ADA violations were moot, whether the complaint otherwise stated a claim, whether civil damages were available under the New York City Human Rights Law, or whether the declaratory-relief request was duplicative on the defendant’s asserted grounds.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). It denied the defendant’s request to bar Wahab from maintaining the lawsuit and granted Wahab leave to amend her complaint to try to correct the deficiencies, with an amendment deadline of August 29, 2025. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.