Feliz v. IHealth Labs Inc.

Background

Roberta Feliz, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software. She alleged that IHealth Labs Inc., which the opinion identifies as a California company, owns and operates www.ihealthlabs.com, a website that sells healthcare products, including COVID-19 tests.

Feliz alleged that she visited the website numerous times, most recently on January 4, 2023, and tried to purchase COVID-19 tests. She identified several alleged access barriers, including images without alternative text, empty links, an inadequately described shopping-cart link, links incompatible with her screen reader, mouse-dependent navigation, and a pop-up window that was not designed for screen readers. She alleged that these barriers prevented her from browsing and completing a purchase and from using other website features. She also alleged that she intended to return to the website and complete purchases once the barriers were fixed.

Feliz asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. She sought, among other relief, money damages, an injunction, and a declaration of the parties’ rights. IHealth moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6).

Standing Analysis

The court addressed the challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction first. Article III standing requires a plaintiff to show an actual or imminent injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that court-ordered relief would remedy the injury. For a plaintiff seeking an injunction based on past discrimination, the plaintiff must also plausibly allege that the discriminatory treatment is likely to happen again and that the plaintiff intends to return.

The court held that Feliz’s allegations did not plausibly establish her intent to return to IHealth’s website. The First Amended Complaint said that she wanted to purchase COVID-19 tests and intended to return after the access barriers were cured, but the court found those allegations conclusory and lacking specific factual detail. In particular, Feliz did not provide details about the frequency of her prior visits beyond identifying her most recent visit, explain why she wanted the COVID-19 tests with sufficient specificity, identify why she wanted to purchase them from IHealth’s website rather than another retailer, or allege that IHealth was the only source of the tests she wanted.

The court therefore concluded that Feliz failed to allege standing for her Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Because the court found that the New York City Human Rights Law has the same standing requirements for injunctive relief, it also concluded that Feliz failed to establish standing for that relief under the local law.

Other Claims and Disposition

The court did not reach IHealth’s arguments that the website’s accessibility issues had been addressed, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over IHealth, or that Feliz failed to state an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court explained that standing was the threshold issue.

The New York City Human Rights Law allows compensatory and punitive damages, unlike the private Americans with Disabilities Act claim at issue, which provides only injunctive relief. After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state or local claims—over Feliz’s New York City Human Rights Law claim for monetary relief. The court also dismissed Feliz’s request for declaratory judgment because it merely sought a declaration of the same rights and obligations involved in her other claims.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted IHealth’s motion to dismiss. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. The court explained that a dismissal for lack of Article III standing is without prejudice, meaning it does not bar another action on the same claims, but the court declined to give Feliz permission to amend this complaint because she had not requested an opportunity to amend. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.