A class action lawsuit claims that a major online retailer of smart pet care products is denying blind and visually impaired individuals equal access to its website, raising questions about digital accessibility and compliance with federal disability law. The complaint was filed by Livingston Bennett on March 25, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Petsnowy, a California-based corporation.
According to the filing, Bennett is legally blind and relies on screen-reading software to access web content. He alleges that Petsnowy’s website, https://petsnowy.com, contains significant barriers that prevent him and others who are visually impaired from independently navigating or making purchases. The lawsuit states, “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 claims these barriers violate his rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The complaint outlines several specific issues encountered by Bennett while attempting to shop for an automatic litter box on October 13, 2025. These include images lacking descriptive alternative text, interactive elements without proper labeling or state announcements, missing mechanisms to bypass repeated content blocks, dialog boxes that do not shift keyboard focus appropriately, redundant links leading to the same destinations, external links not identified as such, and navigation menus that fail to announce their expanded or collapsed states. According to Bennett’s filing, “the Website requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction,” which presents a fundamental barrier since “Bennett and visually impaired users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual activity.” As a result of these design choices, he asserts that “visually impaired customers are essentially prevented from purchasing any items on the Website.”
The suit emphasizes that accessible technology—such as alternative text for images and keyboard-friendly navigation—is widely available and used by other retail websites but has not been implemented by Petsnowy. It cites established guidelines like version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which are recognized standards for making websites usable by people with disabilities. The complaint argues that incorporating these features would not fundamentally alter Petsnowy’s business or impose an undue burden.
Bennett brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals nationwide who have attempted but failed to access goods or services via Petsnowy’s website due to visual impairment during the relevant statutory period. He seeks certification of this group as a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Common questions presented include whether Petsnowy’s website qualifies as a “public accommodation” under ADA definitions and whether it denies full enjoyment of goods or services based on disability.
In addition to seeking compensatory damages for alleged emotional distress—including frustration, embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, stress, anger—and interference with daily activities caused by exclusion from online shopping opportunities enjoyed by sighted customers, Bennett requests both preliminary and permanent injunctions. Specifically, he asks the court to require Petsnowy “to take all steps necessary” so its website will be “readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals.” The complaint also seeks declaratory relief stating that operation of the current website discriminates against people with disabilities in violation of federal law.
The filing references recent guidance from the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division confirming that ADA requirements apply equally to web-based goods and services offered by public accommodations.
The case is being handled by attorney David B. Reyes of Equal Access Law Group PLLC on behalf of Bennett and proposed class members. The case number is 1:26-cv-3296.
Source: 126cv03296_Livingston_Bennett_v_PetsnowyComplaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
