580 F.Supp.3d 9
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Plaintiff Josue Romero, a New York domiciliary who is visually impaired, alleges he repeatedly tried to use defendant 88 Acres Foods’ commercial website (www.88acres.com) to purchase goods but encountered accessibility barriers (e.g., missing alt‑text, improperly labeled or empty links) that prevented screen‑reader use.
- Defendant 88 Acres Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Massachusetts that sells and ships products nationwide, including to New York.
- Romero sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related New York and New York City statutes, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and a putative class.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)) and failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)).
- The court denied the motion in full: (1) it found personal jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1) because the interactive, transactional website purposefully availed itself of the New York market and the claims arose from those transactions, and (2) it held that Title III’s term “public accommodation” encompasses private commercial websites that affect commerce, with or without a nexus to a physical place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1) | Romero: 88 Acres transacts business in NY via an interactive website that ships to NY customers; his claims arise from those transactions. | 88 Acres: corporate domicile outside NY and an online presence alone does not establish transacting business or purposeful availment. | Court: jurisdiction proper—website is fully interactive, effects commercial transactions in NY, and there is a substantial relationship between those transactions and the ADA claim. |
| Due process (minimum contacts and reasonableness) | Romero: purposeful availment of NY through online sales makes haling defendant into NY foreseeable; litigating in NY is reasonable. | 88 Acres: litigating in NY would be unreasonable and unfair given out‑of‑state domicile. | Court: minimum contacts met; defendant failed to show asserting jurisdiction would be unreasonable. |
| Whether the ADA covers websites as "places of public accommodation" | Romero: Title III’s language, purpose, and catch‑all categories support including commercial websites that affect commerce. | 88 Acres: Title III refers to physical "places" and §12181(7) examples show Congress intended physical locations; stand‑alone websites fall outside. | Court: Title III ambiguous as to websites; statutory context, purpose, and legislative history support reading "public accommodation" to include private commercial websites. |
| Pleading failure under Rule 12(b)(6) | Romero: pleaded concrete accessibility barriers (alt‑text, link labels) showing denial of equal access to services. | 88 Acres: website is not a covered place and ADA does not apply; thus claims fail as a matter of law. | Court: complaint states plausible ADA claim because websites can be public accommodations and factual barriers were adequately pled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999) (Title III applies to insured goods/services even when some functions occur offsite)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (website interactivity relevant to New York long‑arm analysis)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (purposeful availment and foreseeability for minimum contacts)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (due process minimum contacts framework)
- Ford v. Schering‑Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998) (ADA public accommodation requires physical place)
- Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler's Ass'n of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (ADA coverage not strictly limited to physical locations)
- Doe v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (electronic facilities offering services can fall within Title III)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires being "at home" in the forum)