A recent federal lawsuit claims that a major retail website fails to provide equal access to blind and visually impaired consumers, raising questions about compliance with disability rights laws in the digital marketplace. The complaint was filed by Grace McCormick on March 3, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against David’s Bridal, LLC and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc.
According to the filing, McCormick is a legally blind resident of Bronx County who relies exclusively on screen-reader software such as JAWS to navigate websites. She alleges that www.davidsbridal.com contains numerous accessibility barriers that prevent her from independently browsing products or completing purchases. The suit states: “During each visit, Ms. McCormick encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise.”
The complaint outlines several attempts by McCormick in December 2025 and January 2026 to shop for formalwear on the retailer’s website. She specifically sought items like the Beaded Corset Bodice Satin Wedding Dress (Style WG4137) but was unable to complete transactions due to technical obstacles. These included product images lacking descriptive text—announced only as “graphic” by her screen reader—unlabeled buttons for selecting sizes or adding items to her cart, empty links, broken ARIA references (which help assistive technologies interpret web content), keyboard navigation problems, and low-contrast text.
Automated audits cited in the complaint support these allegations. A SortSite audit reportedly found hundreds of violations across nearly 1,000 pages of the site: “373 pages with missing link names,” “627 pages with empty buttons,” “550 pages with invalid HTML structure,” among other issues. Additional scans using WAVE software detected dozens of errors per page related to missing alternative text and form labels.
The plaintiff asserts that these barriers are not isolated incidents but reflect systemic non-compliance with established standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA—a widely recognized benchmark for digital accessibility adopted by many private entities and government agencies.
The suit further notes that this is not the first time David’s Bridal has faced similar allegations. It references Mendizabal v. David’s Bridal, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-09494 (S.D.N.Y.), where another blind consumer previously sued over comparable website barriers including missing alt-text and unlabeled controls. Despite this prior litigation, McCormick alleges that defendants have failed to remediate their platform.
Legal arguments in the filing rest on multiple statutes: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation; the New York State Human Rights Law; the New York City Human Rights Law; and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The complaint states: “Defendant’s failure to design, maintain, and operate its Website in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers denies Ms. McCormick—and all similarly situated individuals—the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant’s goods [and] services.”
McCormick brings this action both individually and as a proposed class representative for all legally blind individuals nationwide who have attempted to use www.davidsbridal.com but were denied equal access due to persistent accessibility barriers during the relevant statutory period. She also seeks certification of a subclass for New York residents facing similar exclusion.
The remedies sought include preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring defendants to bring their website into compliance with ADA standards; adoption of accessibility policies; compensatory damages; civil penalties; punitive damages under applicable state and city laws; declaratory relief confirming ongoing violations; pre-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees; costs; expert fees; class certification; appointment as class representative; appointment of counsel as class counsel; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is being handled by attorney Robert Schonfeld of Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC on behalf of Grace McCormick (Case No.: 1:26-cv-01758).
Source: 126cv01758_Grace_Mccormick_v_Davids_Bridal_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
