Tavarez-Vargas v. Annie's Publishing, LLC

Background

Carmen Tavarez-Vargas sued Annie’s Publishing, LLC, individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. She alleged that Annie’s website, www.annieskitclubs.com, was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people who use screen-reading software. She asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Tavarez-Vargas alleged that she visited the website on July 28, 2021, and April 4, 2022, to purchase a hook and needle kit. She alleged that her screen reader could not properly use the accessibility menu, read the title function for selected crafts, or read the prices of hook and needle kits. She therefore could not complete the purchase. She also alleged that she strongly wanted to buy a hook and needle kit and intended to return after the accessibility barriers were fixed.

Annie’s Publishing moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The company argued that Tavarez-Vargas’s claims were moot and that she had not adequately alleged standing.

Standing analysis

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal stake in a federal case. For a claim seeking an order requiring accessibility changes, the plaintiff must allege a past injury, facts supporting a reasonable inference that the problem will continue, and facts supporting a reasonable inference that the plaintiff intends to return to the website.

Judge Torres concluded that the amended complaint contained only bare and conclusory statements about Tavarez-Vargas’s intent to return. The complaint stated that she visited the website twice, nearly nine months apart, and intended to return, but it did not explain what particular hook and needle kit she wanted, whether Annie’s Publishing was the only retailer offering that kit, or why she would return to this website once the barriers were fixed. The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show a likelihood of return or a concrete and particularized injury.

Because the court found that Tavarez-Vargas had not adequately alleged standing, it did not reach Annie’s Publishing’s mootness argument.

Disposition

The court granted Annie’s Publishing’s motion to dismiss Tavarez-Vargas’s Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law claims for lack of standing. The conclusion states that the motion to dismiss was granted and that the amended complaint was dismissed.

The court also granted Tavarez-Vargas’s request for leave to amend. It found that Annie’s Publishing had not shown that she could not cure the standing problem, particularly with the guidance provided by the order and a Second Circuit decision. Tavarez-Vargas was permitted to file an amended complaint within 21 days, by April 4, 2023.