Guglielmo v. ECS Tuning, LLC

Background

Joseph Guglielmo filed the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that ECS Tuning’s website and mobile applications were not fully accessible to blind or visually impaired individuals, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The decree states that the plaintiff contended the website was a service, privilege, or advantage of a place of public accommodation. ECS Tuning denied that the website violated federal, state, or local law and denied any wrongdoing or liability.

Settlement Terms

The parties agreed to resolve and compromise all issues without a trial or further adjudication of the factual or legal issues raised in the complaint. The consent decree requires ECS Tuning to use “Reasonable Efforts” to give people with disabilities, including Guglielmo, an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from goods, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided through the website. It also requires reasonable efforts to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated, or treated differently because auxiliary aids and services are absent.

Within 24 months after the decree’s effective date, ECS Tuning must modify the website as needed to substantially conform to applicable Level A and AA success criteria in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 and/or 2.1, so the website will be accessible to people with vision disabilities. The decree excludes certain user-generated or third-party content and does not require narrative descriptions for videos. It also provides that reasonable reliance on other listed accessibility guidance can satisfy ECS Tuning’s obligations, and that ECS Tuning will be considered to have satisfied its remediation obligations if it cannot achieve substantial conformance despite using reasonable efforts.

The decree remains in effect for the earlier of 36 months after its effective date or the date on which the U.S. Department of Justice adopts website regulations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The parties resolved costs, damages, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and other financial matters through a separate settlement agreement, whose remedial provisions were incorporated into the decree. The decree is intended to benefit people with vision disabilities who access the website, making them intended third-party beneficiaries.

Enforcement

A party alleging a violation must provide written notice, and the alleged breaching party generally has a 60-day period to respond or cure the issue, subject to possible extensions. The decree also establishes a process involving an independent accessibility consultant and generally requires at least 90 days for ECS Tuning to remedy an issue after receiving the consultant’s opinion before a breach may be established. The prevailing party in an enforcement action may receive attorneys’ fees and costs at the court’s discretion.

Court’s Action and Effect

Judge Carter found that the court had jurisdiction, that the decree was binding on the parties, and that it met the applicable settlement standards. The court specifically stated that the decree was for settlement purposes only, was not an admission by ECS Tuning, and did not constitute a finding of liability. The court approved the decree, adopted it, and made it an order of the court. The court retained jurisdiction for 36 months. Although the decree states that it adjudicates the merits of claims that were or could have been alleged in the action, the parties expressly resolved the case without trial or further adjudication of the disputed factual and legal issues.