A lawsuit claims that a popular online candy retailer’s website cannot be used by blind or visually impaired consumers, raising questions about digital accessibility and compliance with disability rights laws. The legal complaint was filed on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Victor Lopez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Raindrops Enterprises, LLC.
According to the filing, Victor Lopez is a legally blind resident of New York who relies on screen-reading software to access websites. The complaint states that Raindrops Enterprises operates an interactive retail website at www.raindropscandy.com but fails to make it accessible to people with visual impairments. Lopez alleges that he attempted multiple times to use the site—including as recently as February 25, 2026—to purchase products such as Raindrops Sour Belts Watermelon but encountered barriers that prevented him from completing transactions or accessing product information.
The lawsuit highlights several specific accessibility issues with the website. These include missing alternative text for images (“alt-text”), empty links without descriptive text, redundant links leading to the same address, linked images missing alt-text, broken links leading to error pages without notification from screen readers, and repeated page titles making navigation difficult for users relying on assistive technology. The complaint argues that these barriers deny blind users “full and equal access” to goods and services offered through the site.
Lopez asserts that such denial violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires places of public accommodation—including online retail stores—to provide equal access to individuals with disabilities. The complaint cites guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice confirming that ADA requirements apply to websites operated by public accommodations: “The Department [of Justice] first articulated its interpretation that the ADA applies to public accommodations’ websites over 20 years ago.” It also references standards established by the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) as recognized benchmarks for web accessibility.
In addition to federal law claims under the ADA, Lopez brings claims under New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and New York State General Business Law Section 349 (GBL). He alleges that Raindrops Enterprises’ failure to update or remove access barriers constitutes unlawful discrimination under these statutes: “Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate, against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services…”
The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have been denied access to Raindrops’ website during relevant periods. Separate sub-classes are proposed for residents of New York State and New York City who have faced similar barriers.
As remedies, Lopez requests both preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Raindrops Enterprises to bring its website into compliance with accessibility standards such as WCAG 2.0. Specific measures requested include hiring a qualified web accessibility consultant; providing regular employee training; conducting periodic automated audits and usability testing by visually impaired users; posting an accessibility policy online; offering feedback channels for reporting problems; modifying bug fix policies; and allowing ongoing monitoring by plaintiff’s counsel for up to two years after compliance is validated.
Lopez also seeks compensatory damages—including statutory damages—civil penalties or fines under state law provisions for each offense found by the court. He requests treble damages under GBL §349(h) if deceptive practices are proven due to lack of product information available through accessible means. Additional relief sought includes pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing the action.
The case is being handled by attorneys Michael A. LaBollita, Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, and Dana L. Gottlieb of Gottlieb & Associates PLLC in New York City. The case identification number is No 1:26-cv-1978.
Source: 126cv01978_Victor_Lopez_v_Raindrops_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
