1:24-cv-09000
S.D.N.Y.Aug 5, 2025Background
- Amanie Riley, who is legally blind and uses screen-reading software, sought to buy a lunch bag from Baggu’s website but encountered numerous accessibility barriers.
- Riley alleges these web accessibility issues denied her equal access to Baggu’s goods and services, violating the ADA, state, and city disability laws.
- Riley filed suit for injunctive relief, damages, and class certification on behalf of blind individuals unable to use Baggu.com.
- Baggu moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Riley lacked standing; their briefing focused solely on standing.
- The court reviewed the First Amended Complaint, assuming its factual allegations as true for the purposes of the motion.
- Baggu argued Riley’s history of ADA litigation and purported inconsistencies in the complaint undermined her standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under ADA for website inaccessibility | Riley suffered a concrete injury by being personally denied access | Riley lacked standing due to no real intention to use the site; allegations were formulaic | Riley sufficiently alleged past injury, not just informational |
| Continuation of discrimination | Barriers persist, denying current and future access | Plaintiff’s allegations do not plausibly allege current or future injury | Ongoing barriers alleged; reasonable inference of continuation |
| Intent to return | Riley intends to return if site becomes accessible; explains interest | Riley lacks genuine intent to return; inconsistencies undermine plausibility | Alleged intent to return is plausible at pleading stage |
| Effect of prolific ADA litigation | Number of prior lawsuits is not relevant to standing if facts suffice | Prolific litigants warrant skepticism and stricter scrutiny | Multiple suits do not heighten pleading standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (establishes standards for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Carter v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, 822 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2016) (burden of establishing standing is on the plaintiff)
- Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022) (sets requirements for ADA standing and intent to return in accessibility cases)
- Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (addresses injury-in-fact and intent to return in ADA context)