Thorne v. Boston Market Corporation, 469 F.Supp.3d 130

Plaintiff Braulio Thorne, legally blind, alleges he cannot independently use Boston Market gift cards because they lack Braille or other accessible features; he called customer service on Oct. 21, 2019 and was told Boston Market does not sell Braille-embossed gift cards.
Thorne lives within a block of a Boston Market restaurant, alleges prior patronage, and says he will purchase a gift card once accessible ones are offered; he seeks a permanent injunction under Title III of the ADA and related state/municipal claims.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the Court held oral argument and considered amici briefs.
The Court found Thorne has Article III standing (denying the 12(b)(1) challenge) but granted dismissal on the merits under 12(b)(6).
Key legal holdings: (1) a gift card is a good sold by a public accommodation, not a "place of public accommodation;" (2) Title III and DOJ regulations do not require public accommodations to alter inventory to sell specialized/accessible goods (e.g., Braille gift cards); and (3) Thorne failed to plausibly plead denial of appropriate auxiliary aids beyond being denied a Braille card.
The Court dismissed the federal ADA claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state and municipal claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	Thorne alleged past injury (phone denial), proximity, prior patronage, and intent to return once accessible cards are sold.	No plausible intent to return; claims filed against many retailers undermine sincerity.	Standing satisfied: past injury, likelihood of continuing discrimination, and plausible intent to return.
Are gift cards "places of public accommodation"?	Gift cards function like websites/a marketplace and should be treated as a place of public accommodation.	Gift cards are products/goods sold at a public accommodation, not a space that provides services.	Gift cards are not "places of public accommodation."
Does Title III require retailers to sell accessible gift cards (alter inventory)?	Gift cards should be treated as goods that must be made accessible (e.g., Braille).	ADA and DOJ regs do not require altering inventory to include specialized or accessible goods.	No. ADA does not obligate a public accommodation to alter inventory to sell accessible or special goods.
Did defendant fail to provide appropriate auxiliary aids/services?	Lack of Braille gift cards and absence of offered alternatives denied effective communication and equal enjoyment.	Plaintiff only asked about Braille and did not inquire about or allege lack of other auxiliary aids; business can choose effective means.	Claim fails: plaintiff pleaded only denial of Braille and did not plausibly allege denial of appropriate auxiliary aids or services.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court accepts factual allegations but not legal conclusions)
Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (ADA standing framework: past injury, likelihood of continuing discrimination, intent to return)
Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184 (awareness and deterrence can be injury under ADA)
Magee v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., 833 F.3d 530 (vending machines are not "places of public accommodation")
Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (Title III requires nondiscriminatory enjoyment of goods/services but does not mandate different goods)
McNeil v. Time Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 179 (courts should not require businesses to alter inventory to satisfy Title III)
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (interpretation of "goods"/"merchandise")
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (distinguishing merits from subject-matter jurisdiction)