Federal Court Dismisses Restaurant Website Accessibility Lawsuit for Lack of Article III Standing

On September 29, 2026, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice in a digital accessibility lawsuit brought against restaurant operator Heng Heng Group, Inc. The decision, issued by Judge Nina R. Morrison, held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Background and Allegations

The action was originally filed on March 29, 2024, as a putative class action on behalf of legally blind individuals. The plaintiff, who is blind and uses NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA) screen-reading software, alleged that the defendant’s website for the Brooklyn restaurant Nourish (www.nourishthai.com) violated Title III of the ADA and local civil rights laws.

According to the First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on December 9, 2024, the plaintiff attempted to access the site on multiple occasions, most recently on March 6, 2024, to obtain menu and location information. The complaint detailed specific accessibility barriers encountered, including:

• Menu images lacking alternative text;
• A hidden element that was not voiced or was incorrectly voiced on a page titled "Secret Grandma Recipe";
• Lack of programmatically determined list markup on the salad menu;
• Interactive elements and reading sequences that did not follow the standard visual page layout;
• Restaurant address, phone number, and email displayed in plain text without interactive markup such as tel: links.

The Court's Ruling on Standing

Under the Second Circuit's framework established in Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp. and heightened by Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd., a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must establish past injury, a reasonable inference of continuing discrimination, and a plausible intent to return to the subject accommodation.

The court found that the plaintiff met the first two prongs: the specific navigation barriers demonstrated an injury-in-fact rather than a mere abstract informational grievance, and past recurring issues supported an inference of ongoing barriers.

However, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the third requirement—establishing a plausible intent to return. While the plaintiff lived in Brooklyn and stated an intent to revisit the website if remedied, the court noted several deficiencies:

• No specific dates or concrete plans were identified regarding future visits to the website or the physical restaurant;
• The plaintiff had never previously visited the physical restaurant;
• Allegations of visiting the website "multiple times" lacked supporting details regarding prior dates other than March 6, 2024;
• The complaint failed to explain the genesis of any specific interest in this particular dining establishment over any other Thai restaurant.

Dismissal With Prejudice

The court declined to grant further leave to amend. Judge Morrison emphasized that the plaintiff had already amended the complaint once and did not formally request additional leave to replead.

Additionally, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had filed at least 38 other lawsuits in the Eastern District of New York—all resulting in settlements or voluntary dismissals—and that the plaintiff’s counsel, Stein Saks, had initiated over 500 ADA website lawsuits across the Southern and Eastern Districts between June 2023 and July 2024 alone. Given counsel's familiarity with Second Circuit pleading standards, the court concluded that another opportunity to amend was unwarranted, dismissing both the ADA claims and the supplemental state-law claims with prejudice. Further details are available in the official court docket.