Yesterday Himelda Mendez filed a five count class action against Apple in the Southern District of New York on behalf of herself and those that are legally blind or visually impaired. The lawsuit was filed due to Apple's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

For the record, Apple has several dedicated website pages covering 'Accessibility Support' for all of their products. They've also had high level presentations made at their World Wide Developer Conferences about writing apps for those with disabilities. More specifically Apple had guest speaker Haben Girma who was the first deaf blind person to graduate Harvard Law School speak in 2016 on the topic "Disability and Innovation: The Universal Benefits of Accessible Design."

Apple continually educates developers to add accessibility features into all of their apps (one, two, three).

With that said, Himelda Mendez believes that she's found a weakness in Apple's system. It doesn't support a Windows centric program called JAWS.

A simple web search found a 2016 article titled "Up and Running with JAWS on a MAC," that told those with visual disabilities that they could use Apple's solution via Bootcamp, or by using third party software from Parallels or VMware Fusion to run her favorite program.

Lastly, under Apple's "Vision" Accessibility page, Apple introduces VoiceOver by stating that "VoiceOver is unique because it's not a standalone screen reader. It's deeply integrated in macOS and all the built-in apps on Mac." In other words, it's a superior solution to a basic screen reader (if I'm reading that correctly).

With that aside, the following is a key part of the Mendez class action lawsuit. To begin with, you can see what the five counts in lawsuit cover.

Causes for Action

Count 1: VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA

Count 2: VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL

Count 3: VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW

Count 4: VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL

Count 5: DECLARATORY RELIEF

A key part of the Lawsuit

"Defendant offers the commercial website, www.apple.com, to the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The goods and services offered by Defendant include but are not limited to the following: store locations and hours, the ability to browse and purchase electronics, such as the iPhone, iPad and MacBook Pro laptop, the ability to make service appointments online, and related goods and services.

It is, upon information and belief, Defendant's policy and practice to deny Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant's website, and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and integrated with Defendant's stores. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's stores and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring in August 2018, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Website, as well as to the facilities, goods and services of Defendant's physical locations in New York by being unable to learn more information about store locations and hours, the ability to browse and purchase electronics, such as the iPhone, iPad and MacBook Pro laptop, the ability to make service appointments online, and related goods and services.

While attempting to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired people that include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Lack of Alternative Text ("alt-text"), or a text equivalent. Alt-text is an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts. Alt-text does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics. As a result, visually-impaired APPLE customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse, look for store locations and hours, the ability to browse and purchase electronics, such as the iPhone, iPad and Macbook Pro laptop, the ability to make service appointments online, and related goods and services.

b. Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen-reader users;

c. Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and

d. Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information contained in PDFs."

Further into the lawsuit they note: ..."simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination."

This PDF states that "Apple Canada continuously works to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level A website requirements in accordance with Ontario’s accessibility laws." If Apple's Canadian website uses this guideline then it's probably following Apple U.S.A..

With that said, Himelda Mendez's full argument is presented below for your review.

For more details on this case, review the full Class Action lawsuit filings below provided to you courtesy of Patently Apple 

Himelda Mendez-V. Apple Class Action by Jack Purcher on Scribd

The Class Action lawsuit presented in today's report was filed in the New York Southern District Court, Foley Square Office. At present, no Judge has been assigned to case 1:2018cv07550.   

The Class Action lawsuit presented in today's report was filed in the New York Southern District Court, Foley Square Office. At present, no Judge has been assigned to case 1:2018cv07550.