A lawsuit has been filed alleging that a major beverage company’s website denies equal access to blind and visually impaired consumers, raising questions about digital accessibility and civil rights protections under federal and state law. The complaint was submitted by Victor Lopez on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc., operator of the Sparkling Ice brand.
According to the filing, Victor Lopez brings the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated who are legally blind or visually impaired. The complaint states that Lopez relies on screen-reading software to navigate websites but encountered multiple barriers when attempting to use www.sparklingice.com. These alleged barriers include missing alternative text for images, broken links, empty or redundant navigation elements, and other features that prevent screen readers from accurately conveying information or enabling purchases.
The legal action outlines that these issues violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires places of public accommodation—including online retail stores—to provide equal access to goods and services for individuals with disabilities. The complaint references guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice confirming that ADA obligations extend to websites operated by public accommodations. Lopez asserts that despite established web accessibility guidelines such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Talking Rain Beverage Company has not ensured its website meets these standards.
The document describes how Lopez attempted to purchase several bottles of Sparkling Ice in different flavors but was unable to complete his transaction due to inaccessible features on the site. The lack of alternative text for images meant he could not identify products or prices; broken links prevented him from navigating between pages; and missing descriptions left him unable to determine product details or complete purchases independently. As stated in the complaint: “Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public.”
The lawsuit further claims that these digital barriers contribute to feelings of isolation among blind consumers—a problem Title III of the ADA was intended to address—and deter them from using online resources critical for daily living. The filing emphasizes: “An inaccessible website can exclude people just as much as steps at an entrance to a physical location.” It also notes that web-based technologies change frequently, requiring ongoing monitoring and policy adjustments rather than one-time fixes.
Lopez seeks certification of nationwide, New York State, and New York City classes consisting of all legally blind individuals who have attempted but failed to access Talking Rain’s website during relevant periods. The suit alleges violations not only under federal law but also under New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and New York General Business Law Section 349 (GBL § 349), which prohibits deceptive business practices.
The legal arguments presented claim that Talking Rain Beverage Company’s failure constitutes intentional discrimination by constructing and maintaining a website inaccessible to those with visual impairments while knowing about such discrimination. According to the filing: “Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate, against Plaintiff…on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services…unless enjoined by this Court.”
As remedies, Lopez requests both preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Talking Rain Beverage Company to bring its website into compliance with accessibility standards such as WCAG 2.0. Specific requested actions include hiring a qualified web accessibility consultant; conducting regular audits; providing staff training; posting an accessibility policy online; creating accessible feedback mechanisms; modifying customer service procedures; addressing reported bugs affecting accessibility; compensatory damages including statutory penalties; treble damages under GBL § 349(h); attorneys’ fees; costs; pre-judgment interest; post-judgment interest; class certification; appointment as class representative; appointment of counsel as class counsel; ongoing monitoring rights for up to two years after compliance validation by an agreed-upon consultant.
Attorneys Michael A. LaBollita, Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, and Dana L. Gottlieb from Gottlieb & Associates PLLC represent Victor Lopez in this matter (Case No. 1:26-cv-01976).
Source: 126cv01976_Victor_Lopez_v_Talking_Rain_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
