Martin v. Second Story Promotions, Inc.

Background

Dominick Martin and John Panarese alleged that Second Story Promotions, Inc.’s website, which sells promotional and related products, was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people. They alleged that Martin visited the website in June 2022 and Panarese visited it in October 2022. They described problems including redundant information and links, improperly labeled headings, a chat or promotional dialog that interfered with screen-reader use, and unlabeled links.

The plaintiffs alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, as well as a claim for declaratory relief. They said they were interested in purchasing products from the website and intended to return after the accessibility barriers were fixed. Both plaintiffs described themselves as disability-rights “testers” who visit places of public accommodation to assess compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Motion and standing standard

Second Story Promotions moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The motion argued that the plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing—the required connection between a plaintiff and a legal dispute that allows the plaintiff to bring the case.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury that is concrete and particularized, traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. In website-accessibility cases, the court stated that a plaintiff must provide non-conclusory, plausible facts supporting both a past injury and an intent to return to the website.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not allege enough specific facts to establish an injury in fact. Although the plaintiffs alleged visits to the website, the complaint described only one visit by each plaintiff. It did not state how they learned about the website, what specifically interested them, what products they viewed or intended to purchase, whether they searched for comparable products, or why Second Story Promotions’ products or website were preferable to alternatives.

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ statements that they intended to return to the website were too general and unsupported. The court considered the broader context of the case, including that Panarese and other plaintiffs filed nine other website-accessibility lawsuits in the same district on the day this complaint was filed. The court found that those complaints used largely identical allegations about interest in the defendants’ products and an intent to return, which further undermined the plaintiffs’ allegations of a concrete injury.

Because the plaintiffs failed to establish standing, the court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court also dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law claim because it applied the same standing requirements. It dismissed the declaratory-relief claim because a request for a declaration does not independently establish a legal dispute or create an independent cause of action. The court did not address Second Story Promotions’ remaining arguments.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It denied the plaintiffs leave to amend because they had already been given an opportunity to amend after Second Story Promotions raised the standing issue, expressly declined to amend, and did not identify proposed amendments that would cure the standing problem. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, the pending motion was terminated, and the case was closed.