Romero v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc.

Background

Josue Romero, a visually impaired person who uses screen-reading software, brought this proposed class action against 88 Acres Foods, Inc. He alleged that the company’s commercial website, www.88acres.com, was not fully accessible to visually impaired users. The alleged barriers included missing alternative text for images, improperly labeled links, links without text, redundant links, and linked images without alternative text.

Romero asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also sought a declaration that 88 Acres had failed to comply with applicable laws.

The opinion states that Romero is domiciled in New York State. It states that 88 Acres is domiciled in Delaware, has its principal place of business in Massachusetts, and sells and distributes its products throughout the United States, including in New York.

The Motion to Dismiss

88 Acres moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(2) concerns whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant—that is, authority over that defendant. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally viable claim.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that Romero adequately pleaded personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1). That statute allows New York courts to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant when the defendant transacts business in New York and the claim arises from that business.

The court found that 88 Acres used a fully interactive website to conduct commercial transactions with New York customers and to deliver goods in New York. The court therefore concluded that 88 Acres purposefully availed itself of the New York market. It also found a substantial relationship between those New York transactions and Romero’s claims because he alleged that the website allowed sighted customers to conduct business but denied equal access to visually impaired customers.

The court further held that exercising jurisdiction was consistent with constitutional due process. It found that 88 Acres had sufficient minimum contacts with New York and had not shown that defending the case there would be unreasonable. The court noted New York’s interest in providing a remedy for its residents and Romero’s interest in litigating where he resides.

Whether the Complaint Stated a Claim

The court next considered 88 Acres’s argument that its website was not a “place of public accommodation” covered by Title III of the ADA. The court noted that the Second Circuit had not decided whether a website qualifies as a place of public accommodation and that courts in other circuits and in the Second Circuit had reached different conclusions.

The court held that the ADA’s coverage includes private commercial websites that affect commerce, whether or not they are connected to a physical location. It reasoned that the statute’s text is ambiguous because it lists physical establishments but also includes services, such as travel services, that are not limited to a physical place. The court also relied on the statute’s references to sales establishments, the ADA’s purpose of eliminating disability discrimination, and legislative history stating that accommodations and services should keep pace with changing technology.

Based on that interpretation, the court concluded that Romero had adequately alleged that 88 Acres’s website was a place of public accommodation and that the alleged accessibility barriers denied visually impaired users equal access to the website’s goods and services.

Disposition

The court denied 88 Acres’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. The ruling allowed Romero’s claims to proceed but did not decide the ultimate merits of whether 88 Acres violated the ADA or the related state and city laws. The court directed the parties to submit a proposed civil case management plan and scheduling order.