Gomez v. Gen. Nutrition Corp.
323 F. Supp. 3d 1368
S.D. Fla.2018Background
- Plaintiff Andres Gomez, who is legally blind and uses the JAWS screen reader, visited GNC’s website in 2017 and could not add items to cart, access the store locator, or read promotions because content was mislabelled and not screen‑reader accessible.
- GNC’s website allows online purchases, displays promotions, and provides a store locator; the site is regularly updated and functions as a gateway to GNC’s brick‑and‑mortar stores.
- Gomez sued under Title III of the ADA seeking injunctive relief; parties tested the site (plaintiff’s expert found accessibility errors; defendant’s automated tests returned no known problems).
- Gomez moved for summary judgment on liability; GNC offered expert Paul Dolegowski; plaintiff moved to exclude his testimony under Daubert.
- The Court found Gomez had Article III standing, excluded Dolegowski’s web‑accessibility opinions as unreliable/unqualified, and held that remaining evidence shows the website is inaccessible and violates the ADA.
- The Court denied summary judgment on remedy because the record does not establish which WCAG 2.0 success level (if any) should be ordered as the remediation standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Gomez suffered concrete injury from inaccessible website and is likely to be harmed again | Site testing is old; not likely to be injured again | Standing granted: Gomez has concrete and imminent injury for injunctive relief |
| Is the website a place of public accommodation? | Website facilitates use of physical stores (store locator, online purchase) and thus is covered by Title III | Website is intangible/online and may be unconnected to physical locations | Held: Yes—GNC’s website is a service of its physical stores and a place of public accommodation (nexus established) |
| Does the website violate the ADA (accessibility)? | Plaintiff’s expert found errors preventing product selection and purchase; therefore discrimination | Defendant’s expert/automated tools found no known problems | Held: After excluding Dolegowski, remaining expert evidence supports that the website remains inaccessible and violates Title III |
| Admissibility of defendant’s expert (Daubert) | Exclude Dolegowski’s web‑accessibility opinions as he lacks qualifications and reliable methodology | Dolegowski is an experienced e‑commerce professional whose testing is reliable | Held: Dolegowski’s web‑accessibility opinions excluded (not qualified/reliable); other non‑accessibility testimony preserved |
| Remedy / Standard for remediation | Plaintiff seeks relief but did not establish which WCAG level applies | GNC points to prior settlement and compliance efforts; disputes standard | Held: Summary judgment denied as to remedy—record insufficient to select specific WCAG success level or remedial order |
Key Cases Cited
- Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods., Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) (Title III covers intangible barriers and services connected to public accommodations)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013) (injury from inaccessible premises/web can confer standing and Title III protection)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeper duties for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)