A new lawsuit alleges that a major online retailer is failing to provide equal access to its website for blind and visually impaired customers, raising questions about compliance with federal disability laws in the digital marketplace. The complaint was filed by Andre Battle on March 4, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Papaya Organics Limited Liability Company.
According to the filing, Battle is legally blind and relies on screen-reading software to access web content. He claims that Papaya Organics’ website, Herbalgoodnessco.com, contains significant accessibility barriers that prevent him and others from independently browsing or making purchases online. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to use the site but were denied full access to its goods and services.
The complaint outlines several specific issues encountered by Battle while attempting to purchase an herbal extract for mood support from Herbalgoodnessco.com on September 3, 2025. Among these were navigation submenus that could not be operated using a keyboard, product images with identical alternative text making it impossible to distinguish between items, and cart dialogs that did not properly announce their contents or allow review via screen reader technology. “Plaintiff was disoriented when the automatic pop-up window appeared on the web page,” states one section of the filing. The document further alleges that these problems are pervasive throughout the site and effectively prevent blind customers from completing transactions without assistance from sighted individuals.
Battle asserts that these barriers violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation—including websites operated by businesses serving the public. The complaint references guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division stating that ADA requirements apply to goods and services offered online: “the Department has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.”
The lawsuit describes how accessible technology—such as alternative text for images, keyboard navigation compatibility, descriptive links, and other features—are widely available and implemented by many retailers but allegedly not present on Herbalgoodnessco.com. According to Battle’s legal team, failure to adopt such measures excludes blind consumers from participating fully in modern commerce: “Papaya Organics excludes the blind and visually-impaired from full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy.”
In addition to violations under federal law, Battle also cites state law claims related to negligent infliction of emotional distress due to his inability to independently use Herbalgoodnessco.com. He alleges suffering interference with daily activities as well as emotional distress including “emotional and mental anguish, loss of sleep… humiliation, stress… embarrassment, and anxiety.” The suit argues that Papaya Organics owed a duty of care as an operator of a commercial website accessible nationwide.
The plaintiff requests several forms of relief from the court: a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Papaya Organics to bring its website into compliance with ADA standards; declaratory judgment affirming discriminatory practices; certification of a nationwide class action; compensatory damages; punitive damages; nominal damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; costs; attorneys’ fees; expert fees; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The case also details broader implications for businesses operating online stores nationwide. It notes that guidelines such as version 2.2 of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are recognized industry standards for ensuring digital accessibility for people with disabilities—and have been adopted by many courts as benchmarks for compliance.
Andre Battle is represented by attorney Uri Horowitz of Flushing, New York. The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-02433.
Source: 126cv02433_Andre_Battle_v_Papaya_Organics_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
