A legally blind individual has filed a lawsuit against a coffee company, alleging that its website is inaccessible to visually impaired users. Holger Fiallo, the plaintiff, filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 28, 2024, targeting Red Rooster Coffee Co. LLC.
Fiallo claims that Red Rooster's digital properties are not formatted to allow legally blind users to access their content effectively. This failure allegedly violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates equal access and effective communication for individuals with disabilities. According to Fiallo, this issue prevents him and other visually impaired customers from accessing information about Red Rooster’s products and using its online services—privileges readily available to sighted customers.
The complaint details several barriers Fiallo encountered while attempting to navigate Red Rooster's website using screen-reader technology. For instance, he was unable to use the main menu or complete purchases due to inaccessible pop-ups and product manuals that were not compatible with screen-readers. These issues deterred him from making a purchase he intended—a specific coffee blend named "Waxwing All-Purpose Blend."
The plaintiff argues that these accessibility barriers force visually impaired users to expend unnecessary time and effort or seek third-party assistance, thus denying them equal access. The U.S. Department of Justice has consistently held that ADA requirements apply to web content offered by public accommodations, reinforcing Fiallo's stance.
In his lawsuit, Fiallo seeks a permanent injunction requiring Red Rooster Coffee Co. LLC to overhaul its digital platform policies and practices. He requests the court mandate several corrective actions: hiring a web accessibility consultant, conducting regular audits and user testing by visually impaired individuals, training employees on web accessibility, posting an accessibility policy on their website, and providing means for users to report accessibility issues.
Additionally, Fiallo demands declaratory judgment confirming that Red Rooster was in violation of ADA requirements at the commencement of this action. He also seeks payment for costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505.
Representing Holger Fiallo are attorneys Benjamin J. Sweet from Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Jonathan D. Miller from the same firm’s Santa Barbara office in California. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-7812.