A new federal lawsuit alleges that an online retailer’s website is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, raising questions about equal access to digital goods and services. The complaint was filed by Milagros Senior on March 12, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Metasee LLC, operator of the Fanttik online retail store.
According to court documents, Milagros Senior brings this case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who are legally blind or visually impaired. The suit claims that Metasee LLC failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website—www.fanttik.com—in a way that is fully accessible to people who rely on screen-reading software. Senior argues that this lack of accessibility violates her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as state and city human rights laws in New York.
The complaint outlines that Senior is a resident of Bronx, New York, who requires screen-reading software to navigate websites. She reports having visited Fanttik’s website multiple times—including most recently on December 5, 2025—in an attempt to purchase a Slim V8 Apex Car Vacuum but was unable to complete her purchase due to what she describes as multiple access barriers. These included broken links, images without alternative text descriptions (alt-text), empty links containing no text, redundant links leading to the same destination, linked images missing alt-text, repeated page titles making navigation difficult for screen readers, and other technical issues that prevent effective use by blind users.
Senior’s filing references guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice stating that public accommodations must make their websites equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. The complaint also cites statistics indicating millions of Americans are visually impaired or blind—including approximately 400,000 in New York State—and emphasizes the growing importance of online access for daily activities such as shopping.
The legal arguments center on whether Fanttik’s website constitutes a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA and similar provisions in New York law. The plaintiff asserts that because Metasee LLC operates an interactive retail platform selling products like automotive tools and home improvement items directly to consumers nationwide—including residents of New York—the company is required by law to ensure its site is usable by those with visual impairments.
The lawsuit seeks several forms of relief from the court. Primarily, it asks for a permanent injunction requiring Metasee LLC to bring its website into compliance with established web accessibility guidelines (specifically WCAG 2.0). This would involve retaining a qualified web accessibility consultant; providing training for employees involved in web development; conducting regular automated audits and user testing by people who are blind or have low vision; posting clear policies about accessibility; establishing feedback mechanisms for reporting problems; modifying customer service procedures; fixing bugs related to screen reader technology; and allowing ongoing monitoring by plaintiff’s counsel.
In addition to injunctive relief aimed at improving future accessibility, Senior seeks compensatory damages for herself and proposed class members under both state and city human rights laws as well as treble damages under New York General Business Law §349 for alleged deceptive practices related to incomplete product information available through inaccessible web features. The complaint requests certification of nationwide and local classes consisting of all legally blind individuals who have attempted but been denied full enjoyment of goods or services offered via Fanttik’s website during relevant periods.
The filing further details how these alleged failures have caused frustration, humiliation, isolation, pecuniary loss due to inability to comparison shop or obtain full product information online—described as being akin to entering a supermarket where essential product labels are covered up—and ongoing deterrence from attempting future purchases until barriers are removed.
Plaintiff is represented by attorneys Dana L. Gottlieb (DG-6151), Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905), and Michael A. LaBollita (ML-9985) from Gottlieb & Associates PLLC based in New York City. The case has been assigned docket number 1:26-cv-02025.
Source: 126cv02025_Milagros_Senior_v_Metasee_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
