A legal complaint alleges that a company’s online retail website denies blind and visually impaired consumers equal access to its goods and services, raising questions about compliance with disability rights laws in the digital age. The lawsuit was filed by Victor Lopez on March 10, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Madecasse LLC.
According to the filing, Victor Lopez brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, claiming that Madecasse LLC failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website—www.beyondgood.com—in a way that is fully accessible to blind and visually impaired persons. The plaintiff asserts that this failure violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and New York State General Business Law § 349 (GBL).
The complaint details how Lopez, who is legally blind and relies on screen-reading software such as JAWS to navigate websites, attempted multiple times to use the Beyond Good website. On his most recent visit on February 25, 2026, he tried to purchase an Espresso Chocolate Vanilla Martini but was unable to do so due to several barriers: broken links, images without alternative text descriptions (alt-text), empty or redundant links, inaccessible forms, repeated page titles making navigation difficult for screen readers, and other issues. These obstacles prevented him from accessing product information or completing purchases independently.
The lawsuit references guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice confirming that public accommodations must make their websites equally accessible under Title III of the ADA. It also cites statistics indicating millions of Americans are visually impaired—including hundreds of thousands in New York—and argues that web accessibility is essential for meaningful participation in modern life.
Lopez claims that these barriers are not isolated incidents but reflect broader policies or practices by Madecasse LLC that discriminate against blind users by failing to follow established web accessibility standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. The complaint lists common problems faced by visually impaired users when websites do not comply with these guidelines—such as missing alt-text for images or inaccessible PDFs—and argues that simple compliance would provide equal access.
The legal arguments assert violations under multiple statutes:
– Under Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.), it is unlawful discrimination for a place of public accommodation—including online retail stores—to deny individuals with disabilities full enjoyment of goods or services.
– Under NYSHRL and NYCHRL provisions cited in the filing, similar requirements apply at state and city levels.
– Under GBL § 349(a), deceptive acts or practices in business are prohibited; Lopez alleges he was unable to obtain product information necessary for informed purchasing decisions due to inaccessible website features.
The plaintiff seeks certification of nationwide and local classes consisting of all legally blind individuals who have been denied equal enjoyment of goods or services offered by Madecasse LLC’s website during relevant periods. He requests a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Madecasse LLC to take steps toward full compliance with web accessibility standards—including hiring consultants, regular audits by experts who are blind or have low vision, staff training on digital accessibility issues, policy changes posted publicly on the site, mechanisms for user feedback regarding accessibility problems, escalation procedures for customer service staff assisting disabled users, prompt bug fixes related to accessibility errors, and ongoing monitoring by plaintiff’s counsel.
In addition to injunctive relief aimed at improving future access for all users with disabilities, Lopez asks for compensatory damages—including statutory damages under state law—civil penalties or fines where applicable under city code provisions, treble damages under GBL § 349(h), pre- and post-judgment interest on any monetary awards granted by the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to federal law including costs associated with monitoring compliance after judgment if granted prevailing party status.
The suit demands a jury trial on all factual questions raised in the complaint. Attorneys listed for Victor Lopez include Michael A. LaBollita (ML-9985), Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905), Dana L. Gottlieb (DG-6151) from Gottlieb & Associates PLLC based in New York City. The case number is 1:26-cv-01977.
Source: 126cv01977_Victor_Lopez_v_Madecasse_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
