Fernandez v. Vanilla Chip, LLC
1:24-cv-05639
| S.D.N.Y. | Apr 18, 2025Background
- Jacqueline Fernandez, who is visually impaired, alleges she was denied equal access to the website operated by Vanilla Chip, LLC, which sells nutritional supplements.
- Fernandez tried to purchase a specific product several times but was unable due to various accessibility barriers on the website (e.g., missing alt text, broken links, mouse-only events).
- She brought a putative class action under Title III of the ADA and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing (Rule 12(b)(1)) and for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)), arguing the website is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA.
- The case comes before the Southern District of New York on a motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under ADA | Suffered concrete injury, likely to recur, intends to return | No real, particularized injury; no genuine intent to return | Standing established; multiple failed attempts and specific intent suffice |
| ADA: Website as Place of Public Accommodation | ADA covers websites selling goods/services, even without nexus | ADA only applies to physical spaces or websites with a physical nexus | ADA applies to commercial websites independent of physical nexus |
| Sufficiency of ADA claim | Identified specific access barriers and intent to repurchase | Barriers do not create actionable claim as site not covered by ADA | Complaint alleges sufficient facts for claim under ADA |
| NYCHRL claim sufficiency/standing | Claims rise and fall with ADA claim as a statutory minimum | Should fail for same reasons as ADA | NYCHRL covers at least what ADA does; claim stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Ass’n, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (ADA public accommodation not limited to physical structures)
- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (ADA applies to goods/services offered by non-physical entities)
- Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998) (ADA public accommodation is a physical place)
- Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (ADA public accommodation requires physical location)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (nexus required between goods/services and physical location under ADA)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (ADA should be interpreted broadly to achieve its remedial purpose)
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999), amended, 204 F.3d 392 (2d Cir. 2000) (ADA covers more than physical access; applies to denial of goods/services)