A lawsuit filed in federal court claims that a major online vehicle marketplace’s website prevents blind and visually impaired consumers from accessing its services, raising questions about digital accessibility and compliance with disability rights laws. The complaint was submitted by Glen Rushefsky on March 19, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Carvana, LLC.
According to the filing, Glen Rushefsky is a legally blind resident of Bronx County who relies exclusively on screen-reader software such as NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA) to navigate websites. After losing his vision due to Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy—a condition documented by his ophthalmologist—Rushefsky sought to sell his classic Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 through Carvana’s platform. He states that he chose Carvana based on recommendations from acquaintances in the visually impaired community and the company’s reputation for user-friendly online transactions.
The complaint details four separate attempts by Rushefsky between December 2025 and March 2026 to use www.carvana.com for selling his vehicle. Each time, he reports encountering significant accessibility barriers: images were announced only as “graphic” without descriptive text; interactive buttons and links lacked labels; form fields had no accessible instructions; and navigation elements could not be activated using screen-reader technology. As a result, Rushefsky says he was unable to begin or complete the vehicle sale process independently. The suit states that “Defendant provided no accessible alternative means for blind consumers to obtain the same services.”
To support these claims, automated audits using SORT-SITE quality and accessibility validation tools were conducted on Carvana’s website. These audits reportedly identified 2,648 pages with accessibility problems across thousands of pages—including missing alternative text for images, empty buttons and links, broken ARIA references (which help assistive technologies interpret web content), missing form labels, contrast errors affecting visibility for low-vision users, and improper semantic markup making navigation difficult. The audit found “60 distinct accessibility issues affecting 6,043 pages,” indicating what plaintiffs describe as systemic failures rather than isolated incidents.
The legal arguments in the case rest on several 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 plaintiff asserts that commercial websites like Carvana’s are considered places of public accommodation under these laws when they offer goods or services to the public. The complaint cites prior court decisions supporting this interpretation.
Rushefsky seeks both injunctive relief—specifically a permanent injunction requiring Carvana to remediate its website so it conforms with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA—and monetary damages where allowed under state law. He also requests that Carvana adopt policies ensuring ongoing digital accessibility compliance.
The suit is brought as a proposed class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access www.carvana.com but were denied full access due to similar barriers. Subclasses are proposed for residents of New York State and New York City specifically affected by these alleged violations.
The complaint outlines five causes of action: violation of Title III of the ADA; violation of New York State Human Rights Law; violation of New York City Human Rights Law; violation of New York State Civil Rights Law; and a request for declaratory relief stating that Carvana’s current practices are discriminatory under applicable laws.
In addition to injunctive relief requiring remediation of accessibility barriers on www.carvana.com, Rushefsky seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages where permitted by law, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, certification of class status for similarly situated individuals nationwide or within relevant jurisdictions, appointment as class representative, appointment of his attorneys as class counsel, and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Rushefsky is represented by Robert Schonfeld at Joseph Norinsberg LLC in New York City. The case identification number is 1:26-cv-02286.
Source: 126cv02286_Glen_Rushefsky_v_Carvana_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York..pdf
