Slade v. Life Spectacular, Inc.

Background

Linda Slade sued Life Spectacular, Inc., doing business as Proven, individually and as the representative of a proposed class of similarly situated people. Slade alleged that Life Spectacular’s website, provenskincare.com, was inaccessible to visually impaired users. She alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Slade alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software. She said she made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on the website, including an attempt on December 28, 2021, but could not obtain personalized skincare products because of accessibility barriers. The alleged barriers included missing alternative text for graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, inadequate navigation links and labels, lack of keyboard access, empty links, redundant links, and requirements that transactions be completed using only a mouse. She also alleged that she could not complete the website’s Skin Quiz, which provided personalized product recommendations. She stated that she continued to want the customized products and her specific formula from Life Spectacular.

The Motions to Dismiss

Life Spectacular moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Slade lacked standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the website was not a “place of public accommodation” covered by Title III of the ADA.

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court can likely remedy. In the ADA context, the court explained that a plaintiff generally must allege a past injury, facts supporting a reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and facts supporting an intention to return to the challenged location or website.

The court held that Slade adequately pleaded standing. It found that her detailed allegations about being unable to navigate the website described a sufficiently particularized past injury. Because she alleged that the accessibility problems had not been fixed, the court also found it reasonable to infer that the problems could continue. Finally, her stated desire to complete Life Spectacular’s Skin Quiz and obtain its customized products plausibly showed that she intended to return if the barriers were removed. The court therefore denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.

Website as a Public Accommodation

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of a place of public accommodation. Life Spectacular argued that the statute’s list of public accommodations refers only to physical places and does not cover a stand-alone website.

The court noted that the Second Circuit had not expressly decided whether a website is a place of public accommodation and that courts had reached different conclusions. The court adopted the position of the vast majority of district courts within the circuit and held that the ADA’s protections extend to commercial websites. It reasoned that the statute’s purpose and its inclusion of service providers that do not require customers to enter a physical location support applying Title III to websites.

The court concluded that Slade had stated an ADA disability-discrimination claim that could provide relief. It also concluded that she necessarily stated claims under the New York State and New York City laws because their standards were coextensive with, or more liberal than, the ADA standard. The court denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court denied Life Spectacular’s motions to dismiss. It returned the dispute to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s chambers for further proceedings and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 13 and 18. The opinion addressed whether Slade’s allegations could proceed; it did not decide whether Life Spectacular ultimately violated the ADA or the state and city laws.