A recent federal lawsuit contends that an apparel retailer’s website denies blind and visually impaired consumers equal access to its goods and services, raising questions about digital accessibility standards for businesses serving the public. The complaint was filed by Isaiah McKinnley on March 6, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Paige LLC, a California-based company operating www.paige.com.
According to the filing, Mr. McKinnley is a legally blind resident of New York County who relies on screen-reader software called NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA) and digital magnification tools to shop online independently. The complaint states that Mr. McKinnley attempted to purchase specific items from Paige’s website—including the Tiano Pant in Deep Anchor Linen, Elkan Sneaker in Cement Suede, and Raye Dress in Sunshine Yellow—on three occasions in January 2026 but was unable to complete his purchases due to persistent accessibility barriers.
The document outlines that Mr. McKinnley’s condition, retinitis pigmentosa, results in severe visual impairment that cannot be corrected with lenses or surgery. He prefers online shopping because physical stores present significant obstacles for him as a blind consumer. However, he alleges that Paige’s website was not compatible with NVDA software during his visits and prevented him from browsing products, selecting sizes or colors, adding items to his cart, or completing checkout independently.
The complaint details specific technical issues found on www.paige.com: empty buttons and links, missing alternative text for images, broken ARIA roles (used for assistive technology), inaccessible size and color selectors, invalid language attributes, contrast failures, and structural defects. Automated WAVE audits conducted by plaintiff’s counsel identified over 140 errors on certain product pages alone—failures which allegedly violate Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level A and AA standards widely recognized as benchmarks for compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Mr. McKinnley asserts that these barriers are not isolated incidents but reflect systemic problems with Paige’s digital accessibility practices. He further claims that efforts to seek assistance through customer support sections were unsuccessful due to similar accessibility issues embedded within those parts of the site.
The lawsuit also references previous legal actions brought against Paige LLC regarding web accessibility under Title III of the ADA—specifically citing Fischler v. Premium Denim LLC and Paige LLC (2018) and Girotto v. Paige LLC (2021)—and argues that despite prior settlements and notice of obligations under disability rights law, Paige continues to operate an inaccessible online store.
On behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals nationwide—and specifically a subclass of New York residents—the plaintiff seeks certification as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The suit alleges violations not only of Title III of the ADA but also the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York State Civil Rights Law (NYCRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Key legal questions raised include whether www.paige.com qualifies as a public accommodation under these statutes and whether its current design unlawfully excludes blind users from accessing retail products or services.
Among other remedies, Mr. McKinnley requests preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Paige LLC to bring its website into compliance with applicable accessibility standards; compensatory damages; civil penalties; punitive damages; declaratory relief confirming discriminatory conduct; class certification; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney fees; expert costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is being handled by Joseph & Norinsberg LLC with Robert Schonfeld representing Mr. McKinnley as attorney for the plaintiff under Case No. 1:26-cv-01908.
Source: 126cv01908_Isaiah_Mckinnley_v_Paige_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
