A new class action lawsuit claims that an online retailer’s website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, allegedly denying them equal access to products and services in violation of federal and state laws. The complaint was filed by Victor Lopez on March 16, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Blue Echo Care LLC.
According to the filing, Lopez is a legally blind individual who relies on screen-reading software to navigate websites. He alleges that Blue Echo Care’s interactive website (www.blueechocare.com) contains multiple barriers that prevent him and others with similar disabilities from accessing information about health products, pricing, terms of service, refund policies, privacy policies, and internet pricing specials offered by the company. The lawsuit states that these barriers violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as provisions of 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 outlines specific issues encountered by Lopez while attempting to purchase a Blue Echo Care Ultra Soft Nighttime Nasal Mask from the defendant’s website. During his most recent visit on February 25, 2026, Lopez reports he was unable to locate product pricing or add items to his cart due to broken links, images without alternative text attributes (‘alt-text’), empty links containing no descriptive text, redundant links leading to the same address, linked images missing alt-text, repeated page titles causing navigation confusion for screen readers, and broken hyperlinks leading to error pages without proper notification. These obstacles allegedly prevented him from completing a purchase or obtaining essential product information.
Lopez asserts that such digital barriers are common among non-compliant websites and have been recognized by courts as forms of discrimination under accessibility standards like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. He contends that making websites compatible with screen-reading technology is necessary for providing equal access under both federal law and widely accepted industry guidelines. The complaint references guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice confirming that public accommodations must make their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The legal filing details how these alleged failures have caused frustration and humiliation for Lopez: “Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant’s Website.” It further argues that these conditions contribute “to Plaintiff’s sense of isolation and segregation”—outcomes Title III of the ADA was designed to prevent.
The lawsuit seeks broad injunctive relief requiring Blue Echo Care LLC to overhaul its web practices. Among other remedies listed in paragraph 46 of the complaint are demands for hiring a qualified web accessibility consultant; regular automated audits; end-user testing by people who are blind or have low vision; staff training; public posting of an accessibility policy; mechanisms for feedback submission; bug fix procedures prioritizing accessibility issues; ongoing monitoring by plaintiff’s counsel; and other steps aimed at ensuring long-term compliance with accessibility standards.
In addition to injunctive relief compelling changes in corporate policy and practice regarding digital accessibility, Lopez requests compensatory damages—including statutory damages under state law—civil penalties or fines where applicable, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees pursuant to relevant statutes including costs related to monitoring compliance after judgment is entered, as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The suit also seeks certification as a nationwide class action representing all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted but failed to access Blue Echo Care’s website during the relevant statutory period. Subclasses are proposed for residents of New York State and New York City respectively.
Attorneys representing Victor Lopez include Michael A. LaBollita (ML-9985), Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905), Dana L. Gottlieb (DG-6151) from Gottlieb & Associates PLLC based at 150 East 18th Street in New York City. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-02213.
Source: 126cv02213_Victor_Lopez_v_Blue_Echo_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York..pdf
