Davis v. Wild Friends Foods, Inc.

Background

Kevin Davis alleged that he is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software. Wild Friends Foods, Inc. operates an online retail website selling snack spreads, including organic honey sunflower butter. Davis alleged that he visited the website five times between April and August 2022 intending to purchase that product.

According to the first amended complaint, the website’s screen reader could not access the search function and did not identify the current focus on a webpage. Davis alleged that these barriers delayed navigation, disoriented him, and interfered with his ability to make an informed purchase decision. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought monetary damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

The Motion to Dismiss

Wild Friends Foods moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether a plaintiff has standing. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

The defendant argued that Davis lacked an injury in fact because the alleged website barriers did not completely prevent him from using the website or placing an order. It also argued that Davis’s claimed intent to purchase the product should not be credited because, according to the defendant, he was a frequent disability-rights tester who had filed more than fifty similar complaints. On the merits, the defendant argued that Davis had not alleged that he requested a reasonable modification that the defendant refused.

Standing

The court held that Davis plausibly alleged standing. For a claim seeking an injunction, a plaintiff must allege not only past harm but also a likely future injury. The court found that Davis sufficiently alleged past harm because he visited the website multiple times, attempted to transact business, and encountered barriers that made using the website more difficult.

The court rejected the argument that a barrier must completely prevent a disabled person from using a website to create an injury. Under the court’s analysis, interference with full and equal enjoyment can be enough when the website is more difficult or burdensome for a disabled user than for users without that disability.

The court also found plausible allegations that the barriers would continue and that Davis intended to return. Davis identified the dates of his prior visits, the specific product he wanted to buy, and his interest in the product’s characteristics. The court stated that a plaintiff’s status as a disability-rights tester does not by itself eliminate standing.

The court concluded that Davis sufficiently alleged standing for both his Americans with Disabilities Act claim and his New York City Human Rights Law claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

The court declined to dismiss the federal disability-discrimination claim. It explained that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant denied the plaintiff a full and equal opportunity to enjoy its services. The defendant did not dispute Davis’s allegations concerning the first two elements, so the court did not decide those issues.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that Davis could proceed only under a reasonable-accommodation theory. The court explained that a complaint need not identify the precise legal theory if it gives adequate notice of the factual basis for the claim.

The court found that Davis had not adequately alleged intentional discrimination because the complaint did not indicate that hostility toward visually impaired people motivated the website’s design. But the court held that the complaint plausibly alleged disparate impact—a theory involving a facially neutral practice that disproportionately harms a protected group. Davis alleged that the website’s design created systematic accessibility barriers affecting visually impaired users who rely on screen readers. Those allegations were enough at the pleading stage to state a disparate-impact claim.

New York City Human Rights Law Claim

The court also held that Davis’s claim under the New York City Human Rights Law was sufficiently pleaded. It reasoned that the city law is at least as protective as the federal disability law for purposes relevant here, so the city-law claim was adequately alleged based on the same facts.

Disposition

The court denied Wild Friends Foods’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion on the docket. The ruling addressed whether the complaint could proceed past the dismissal stage; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims.