A new lawsuit alleges that an online retailer’s website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, raising questions about equal access to digital goods and services under federal law. The complaint was filed on March 4, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Geovanni Bahena Figueroa on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Flagship Brands, LLC, which does business as Feetures.
According to the filing, Figueroa is a legally blind individual who requires screen-reading software to access web content. He asserts that he attempted multiple times—most recently on October 29, 2025—to shop for performance socks on www.feetures.com but was unable to complete his purchase due to barriers incompatible with screen reader technology. The complaint states that these barriers included missing alt-text for images, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, requirements for mouse-only navigation, and broken links.
The lawsuit claims that such barriers deny full and equal access to the goods and services offered through the Feetures website. It cites Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation—including websites offering goods or services to the public. The complaint references guidance from the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division stating that ADA requirements apply to all goods and services offered by public accommodations online.
Figueroa argues that because he could not independently navigate or transact on the Feetures website using his screen reader software—specifically NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA)—he suffered a concrete injury by being unable to purchase his desired pair of performance socks. He further alleges ongoing harm because he intends to return to the site if it becomes accessible but remains deterred by its current state.
The filing outlines technical standards for accessibility developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), known as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. These guidelines are widely adopted by businesses and government agencies seeking to ensure their websites are usable by people with disabilities. The plaintiff claims that compliance with WCAG 2.1 would remedy many common issues faced by blind users—including lack of text equivalents for images, inaccessible forms or navigation elements, and other obstacles preventing independent use.
In addition to recounting his personal experience attempting—and failing—to shop on feetures.com, Figueroa seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have been denied equal enjoyment of goods and services from Feetures’ website during the relevant statutory period. He contends that common legal questions predominate among potential class members regarding whether defendant’s website constitutes a place of public accommodation under federal law and whether it denies full enjoyment as required by statute.
The plaintiff requests several forms of relief from the court: a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of the ADA; an order requiring Flagship Brands/Feetures to bring its website into compliance with accessibility standards; a declaration confirming that operating an inaccessible website violates federal law; nominal damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; costs including attorneys’ fees; class certification; appointment as class representative; appointment of his attorneys as class counsel; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
As part of proposed injunctive relief, Figueroa asks that Feetures be required to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to both parties who would assist in achieving WCAG 2.1 compliance through employee training, regular accessibility checks and user testing involving blind individuals, policy development regarding accessibility practices posted publicly on its site, and establishment of contact information for reporting problems.
The case is being handled by attorney Yaakov Saks of Stein Saks PLLC in Hackensack, New Jersey. The case number is 1:26-cv-2411.
Source: 126cv02411_Geovanni_Bahena_v_Flagship_Brands_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
