Loadholt v. Game Goblins, LLC

Background

Christopher Loadholt brought claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Game Goblins, LLC. He alleged that Game Goblins’s website, www.gamegoblins.com, was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people who use screen-reading software. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Loadholt alleged that he is blind and visually impaired and lives in the Bronx. He said that he visited the website on June 18 and 25, 2022, and November 20, 2022, to browse the online store and potentially buy board games. According to the amended complaint, the website had several barriers: dropdown menus did not work with a keyboard; screen-reader users could not access product submenus; some links were labeled “blank”; product information and prices could not be accessed; and checkout fields were mislabeled. He alleged that these problems prevented him from browsing the website or purchasing board games.

Loadholt stated that he wanted to return to the website to browse and potentially purchase products after the site became accessible. Game Goblins moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Loadholt lacked Article III standing because he had not adequately alleged an injury in fact.

Standing Analysis

Article III standing requires a plaintiff to allege a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. For an ADA claim seeking an injunction, the plaintiff must also plausibly show a likelihood of future injury, including a reasonable inference that the plaintiff intends to return to the website.

The court held that Loadholt’s allegations were bare and conclusory. Although he alleged three visits over five months and expressed a desire to return once the website became accessible, he did not identify the board games he wanted, explain whether Game Goblins was the only retailer selling those games, or explain why he would return to Game Goblins to buy them once the barriers were fixed. The court concluded that these allegations did not plausibly show an intent to return or a concrete and particularized injury. The court applied the same standing requirements to the New York City Human Rights Law claims.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres granted Game Goblins’s motion to dismiss Loadholt’s ADA and New York City Human Rights Law claims for lack of standing. The court also dismissed Loadholt’s request for a declaratory judgment because it merely repeated the rights and obligations involved in his other claims. The conclusion states that the motion to dismiss was granted and that the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 21.