Cromitie v. Wayfair LLC

Background

Seana Cromitie filed this putative class action against Wayfair, LLC. She alleged that Wayfair.com was not fully accessible to, or independently usable by, her and other blind or visually impaired people. The complaint asserted violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Wayfair denied that its website violated federal, state, or local law. It also denied that the website was a place of public accommodation subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York City Human Rights Law. The decree states that Wayfair did not admit wrongdoing or liability.

Consent Decree

The parties agreed to resolve, settle, and compromise all issues in the action without a trial or further adjudication of the factual or legal issues raised in the complaint. The decree applies to Wayfair.com and several other identified websites, along with their related applications and linked pages, collectively called the “Released Websites.”

Under the decree, Wayfair must not deny people with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations provided through the Released Websites. Wayfair must also use “Reasonable Efforts” to provide equal opportunities and to prevent people with disabilities from being excluded, denied services, segregated, or treated differently because auxiliary aids and services are absent.

To the extent not already completed, Wayfair must use Reasonable Efforts within 18 months after the decree’s effective date to modify the websites 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 that the websites are accessible to people with vision disabilities. The decree excludes certain user-generated, third-party, and uncontrolled content and does not require narrative descriptions for videos. It also permits Wayfair to stop the remediation efforts if the Department of Justice or a court determines that the standards are not legally required or that websites are not public accommodations under Title III.

The decree defines Reasonable Efforts in a way that does not require efforts that would create an undue burden, fundamentally alter the website’s operation, or cause a loss of website-related revenue or traffic. It also provides that Wayfair is not in breach for an accessibility issue unless an independent accessibility consultant determines that the issue cannot be accomplished by a person with a disability using specified screen readers and supported browsers, and Wayfair then fails to remedy the issue through Reasonable Efforts within the required period.

Enforcement and Scope

A party alleging a breach must provide written notice and allow a 30-day cure period, subject to extensions when necessary. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, the complaining party may seek enforcement from the court. The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in an enforcement action.

The decree benefits people with vision disabilities, including people who use screen readers to access the websites. They are intended third-party beneficiaries, meaning they may benefit from the decree’s protections. The decree does not bind members of the proposed class because no class was certified.

Court’s Action

The court found that it had jurisdiction and that the decree complied with the governing settlement standard. It stated that the decree was for settlement purposes only, was not an admission by Wayfair, and did not constitute a finding of liability. The court approved, adopted, and entered the consent decree as an order of the court. The classification is procedural because the parties settled the dispute without a trial or merits determination of whether Wayfair violated the law.