A lawsuit claims that a major online retailer’s website denies blind and visually impaired individuals equal access to goods and services, allegedly violating federal disability law. The complaint was filed by Livingston Bennett on March 27, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ING Source, LLC.
According to the court filing, Bennett is legally blind and requires screen-reading software to access web content. He brings this case on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, arguing that ING Source’s website (https://oslst.com/) contains significant barriers that prevent independent use by blind or visually impaired customers. The complaint states that these barriers make it impossible for such users to complete transactions online without assistance from sighted individuals.
The document outlines how Bennett attempted to purchase a knee compression sleeve from the defendant’s website but was unable to do so due to various accessibility issues. These included problems such as repetitive landmark labels, poorly descriptive alternative text for images, hidden elements not announced by screen readers, navigation menus that were difficult to operate using only a keyboard, and interactive elements lacking clear labels. Bennett reports that these obstacles prevented him from navigating the site efficiently or completing his intended purchase.
The complaint emphasizes that accessible technology exists and is used by other retail websites but alleges that ING Source relies on an exclusively visual interface without meaningful accommodations for screen-reader users. As stated in the filing: “Defendant excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy.”
Bennett argues that this exclusion violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation. The lawsuit asserts that websites like ING Source’s are considered public accommodations under federal law. It cites guidance from the United States Department of Justice stating that ADA requirements apply to goods and services offered on websites.
Specific examples provided in the complaint include inaccessible forms needed for purchases or inquiries, lack of alt-text descriptions for important graphics, non-interactive contact information such as phone numbers presented in plain text, and inconsistent focus order when navigating dialogs or menus using assistive technology. According to Bennett’s account of his experience on January 14, 2026: “After Bennett added a product to the cart, a cart dialog opened, but keyboard focus remained on the ‘Add to Cart’ button instead of moving to the dialog.” This made it impossible for him to proceed with checkout independently.
The filing further alleges that these barriers force visually impaired customers either to rely on others or spend additional time and resources shopping at physical stores rather than being able to shop online independently like sighted consumers.
Bennett seeks both injunctive relief—specifically an order requiring ING Source to bring its website into compliance with ADA standards—and compensatory damages for himself and other class members who have experienced similar discrimination. The proposed class includes all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access ING Source’s website during the relevant statutory period but were denied full enjoyment of its goods or services due to accessibility barriers.
The complaint requests certification as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointment of Bennett as Class Representative, declaratory judgment regarding violations of federal law, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Bennett is represented by Michael Ohrenberger of Equal Access Law Group PLLC. The case number is 1:26-cv-3433.
Source: 126cv03433_Livingstone_Bennett_v_Ing_SourceComplaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf