A new class action lawsuit claims that a major confectionery retailer’s website excludes blind and visually impaired consumers from accessing its products and services, raising questions about digital accessibility and compliance with federal disability laws. The complaint was filed by Livingston Bennett on March 27, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Sweet Candy Company.
According to the filing, Bennett is legally blind and relies on screen-reading software to navigate websites. He alleges that Sweet Candy Company’s website, https://www.sweetcandy.com/, contains significant barriers that prevent him and others with similar disabilities from independently browsing or completing purchases online. The complaint 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.”
The lawsuit outlines several specific issues encountered by Bennett while attempting to purchase chocolate sticks from the site in January 2026. Among these issues were missing alternative text for images, improper heading structures, inaccessible forms, ambiguous link texts, lack of keyboard navigation support for interactive elements, and other design flaws that impede screen-reader use. For example, Bennett reports that “Landmarks were not properly inserted into the home page,” making it difficult to access main regions of content using assistive technology. Additionally, he notes that after selecting a sorting option on a product category page, “the Website reloaded, and the keyboard focus was reset to the first element on the page,” which caused confusion due to an unexpected change in context.
The complaint argues that these deficiencies violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in places of public accommodation—including commercial websites. It references recent guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice affirming that ADA requirements apply to goods and services offered online by public accommodations.
Bennett further contends that accessible web design guidelines are well established through sources such as version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). These guidelines recommend features like alternative text for images, keyboard navigability, descriptive links, accessible forms, and consistent heading hierarchies—all areas where Sweet Candy Company’s website allegedly falls short.
The suit describes how these barriers force visually impaired customers either to rely on sighted assistance or resort to shopping at physical stores—often at additional cost or inconvenience—rather than enjoying independent access via e-commerce platforms like sighted users do. “If the Website was accessible,” states Bennett’s filing, “a visually impaired individual could independently investigate products and make purchases via the Internet as sighted individuals can and do.”
Bennett seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Sweet Candy Company’s website but were denied full enjoyment of its goods or services during the relevant statutory period. The lawsuit requests both declaratory relief—a judicial statement clarifying whether Sweet Candy Company’s practices comply with applicable law—and injunctive relief requiring immediate remediation of accessibility barriers.
Specifically, Bennett asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of disability rights law; an order compelling Sweet Candy Company to bring its website into full compliance with ADA standards; a declaration recognizing current practices as discriminatory; certification of his proposed class; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees; expert costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case was brought by Alison Chan of Equal Access Law Group PLLC on behalf of Bennett and similarly situated plaintiffs. The case number is 1:26-cv-3391.
Source: 126cv03391_Livingston_Bennett_v_Sweet_CandyComplaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
