New York, NY – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) has seen a shift in the handling of website accessibility lawsuits. In a recent decision, SDNY Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed a complaint with prejudice due to vague allegations regarding the plaintiffs’ standing to sue. This departure from the norm may have implications for future cases in the district.
The lawsuit involved two blind individuals who identified themselves as testers. They alleged that an online retailer’s website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law due to various technical barriers they encountered. Notably, the plaintiffs had filed multiple lawsuits against other commercial website operators in the past.
The plaintiffs’ complaint contained generic allegations that have previously been considered sufficient to establish standing in SDNY. They claimed to have visited the website with the intention of purchasing products, but encountered obstacles such as redundant links and improperly labeled headings. They also expressed a desire to return to the website after the alleged barriers were removed.
However, Judge Vyskocil found the plaintiffs’ allegations to be conclusory and insufficient to establish injury in fact, which is necessary for standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs only mentioned a single visit to the website and failed to provide any supporting facts about their interest in the products or services offered. The court also considered the plaintiffs’ numerous nearly identical complaints filed concurrently as evidence that they had not suffered an injury in fact.
In a departure from the usual practice of dismissing cases for lack of standing without prejudice, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint, as they had failed to address the pleading deficiencies pointed out by the defendant. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim under the New York State Human Rights Law based on lack of standing, rather than declining to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims.
This decision could signal a change in the SDNY’s approach to website accessibility cases. Judges may be growing weary of the high volume of generic complaints flooding their courts and are starting to demand more specific and factual pleading to establish standing. It remains to be seen whether this trend will continue in future cases.
Overall, this ruling underscores the importance of providing clear and substantive allegations of injury in website accessibility cases. Plaintiffs will likely face increased scrutiny when asserting standing to sue in the SDNY, as courts demand more than boilerplate conclusions. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future litigation surrounding website accessibility in the district.