A new class action lawsuit claims that a major online retailer’s website excludes blind and visually impaired customers from independently accessing its products and services, raising questions about digital accessibility requirements under federal law. The complaint was filed by Livingston Bennett in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 6, 2026, naming Fountain Pen Revolution LLC as the defendant.
According to the filing, Bennett is legally blind and relies on screen-reading software to navigate websites. He asserts that Fountain Pen Revolution’s website, https://fprevolutionusa.com, contains multiple barriers that prevent him and others with similar disabilities from browsing products or completing purchases without assistance. The suit alleges this lack of accessibility constitutes discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The complaint outlines that approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including around 260,000 individuals in Illinois alone. Bennett states he attempted to purchase a fountain pen as a gift from the defendant’s website but encountered obstacles such as poorly described images, improper heading structures, inaccessible forms, and features requiring mouse use rather than keyboard navigation. As detailed in the filing: “Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website.”
Bennett describes specific incidents on August 21, 2025, and December 8, 2025, when he tried unsuccessfully to buy a product due to these barriers. For example, he notes that submenu elements could not be operated using a keyboard: “Bennett was unable to expand and access product categories,” which limited his ability to browse options. Additionally, alternative text for images did not provide meaningful descriptions: “Multiple images of the selected product were announced with identical alternative text… Bennett was unable to properly evaluate the product.”
The complaint references established web accessibility guidelines such as those published by the World Wide Web Consortium (WCAG 2.2) and standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. It argues that many other businesses have implemented these guidelines successfully: “These guidelines recommend several basic components for making websites accessible… Without these very basic components, a website will be inaccessible to a visually impaired individual using a screen reader.”
Bennett contends that despite available technology enabling accessible design—such as alt-text for graphics and keyboard-accessible navigation—Fountain Pen Revolution has not taken adequate steps to ensure its site can be used independently by people who are blind or visually impaired. The lawsuit further claims this exclusion forces affected individuals either to seek help from sighted companions or make purchases at physical stores instead.
The legal action seeks both injunctive relief—requiring Fountain Pen Revolution LLC to bring its website into compliance with ADA standards—and compensatory damages for what it describes as unlawful discrimination against Bennett and similarly situated consumers nationwide. Specifically, Bennett requests “a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take all steps necessary” so that “the Website is readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals.” He also asks for class certification so other affected individuals may join in seeking relief.
The suit includes two main causes of action: violation of Title III of the ADA and declaratory relief establishing whether or not Fountain Pen Revolution’s website discriminates against visually impaired users under federal law.
The case was filed by Alison Chan of Equal Access Law Group PLLC on behalf of Bennett and potential class members across the United States who have allegedly been denied equal enjoyment of goods or services offered through fprevolutionusa.com due to visual impairment-related barriers. The case number is 1:26-cv-2523.
Source: 126cv02523_Livingston_Bennett_v_Fountain_Pen_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
