Complaint with Jury Demand; Against Revival Rugs, Inc. by Zachary Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Saks, Yaakov)
INTRODUCTION
1Plaintiff ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, asserts the following claims against Defendant REVIVAL RUGS, INC., as follows.
2Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen- reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms “blind” or “visually-impaired” to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
3Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind.
4Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
-2-
its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
5Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons.
6Because Defendant’s website, www.revivalrugs.com (the “Website”), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12182, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq.
8Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) and (2) because Defendant conducts and continues to conduct a substantial and significant amount of business in this District, and a substantial portion of the conduct complained of herein occurred in this District because Plaintiff attempted to utilize, on a number of occasions, the subject Website within this Judicial District.
9Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been and is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Eastern District of
-3-
Wisconsin that caused injury and violated rights the ADA prescribes to Plaintiff and to other blind and other visually impaired-consumers. A substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District: on several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant’s Website in Kenosha County. These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant’s Website in the future.
10The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has recently provided “Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA.” It states in part, “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.”
11This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
12This lawsuit is aimed at providing legally blind users like the Plaintiff a full and equal experience.
THE PARTIES
13Plaintiff ZACHARY MORRIS, at all relevant times, is and was a resident of Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
14Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), and the regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq.
-4-
15Defendant is, and at all relevant times was, doing business in this jurisdiction.
16Defendant’s Website, and its goods and services offered thereupon, is a public accommodation within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).
STANDING
17Plaintiff ZACHARY MORRIS is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), and the regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq.
18Consumers such as the Plaintiff may purchase Defendant’s products and access other brand related content and services at www.revivalrugs.com (“Website”), the Website Defendant owns, operates and controls.
19In addition to researching and purchasing Defendant’s products and services from the comfort and convenience of their homes, consumers may also use Defendant’s Website to sign up to receive product updates, product news, and receive special promotions not available elsewhere.
20Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on November 10, 2025, to access Defendant’s Website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content and services.
21Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a washable rug.
22Plaintiff’s desire for this product was due to the fact that he was searching for a rug suitable for everyday home use and wanted an option designed for regular maintenance and cleaning. While browsing online for retailers specializing in home
-5-
decor and floor coverings, Plaintiff came across Defendant’s Website, which offers a range of rugs in different styles, materials, and constructions. The availability of washable rug options aligned with what Plaintiff was looking to purchase.
23This Website presents revivalrugs.com as a home decor retailer focused on thoughtfully produced rugs, offering collections that include washable designs, vintage-inspired pieces, and contemporary patterns. It highlights an emphasis on sustainable practices, curated selections, and direct-to-consumer availability. The Website also offers free shipping and a discount on a first purchase. Therefore, Plaintiff wanted to make a purchase through the Website.
24Unfortunately, he was unable to complete this purchase due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s Website.
25Due to Defendant’s failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the washable rug, he wished to acquire from the Website.
26The law requires that the Defendant reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s disabilities by removing these existing access barriers.
27Plaintiff has been, and in absence of an injunction will continue to be injured by Defendant’s failure to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology.
28Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to and enjoyment of the good, benefits and services of the Website, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact
Read the full filing
You’re reading pages 1–5 of 19. Register free to read the complete 19-page transcript on this page.
Register free to continue reading →
These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.
advertisement
Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73109504, document 1). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.