Federal Court Transfers Tapestry Website Accessibility Lawsuit to Central District of California

On September 10, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order transferring a digital accessibility class action against Tapestry, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Background of the Dispute

The action was originally initiated in December 2023 by an individual residing in Contra Costa County, California. The lawsuit alleged that Tapestry, Inc.—a Maryland corporation headquartered in Maryland—operated a website that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The initial filings claimed that improperly coded form elements prevented screen reader users from completing online purchases and accessing the goods and services offered in conjunction with Tapestry’s physical retail stores.

On June 24, 2025, the court granted leave to file a second amended complaint substituting a new lead plaintiff: a resident of Riverside County, California. The substituted plaintiff raised substantially similar claims, alleging that incompatibility between the website and screen readers hindered online shopping and prevented the use of the retailer's "Pick Up In Store" service.

Allegations of Inaccessibility

According to the second amended complaint, the plaintiff experienced specific barriers while attempting to use Tapestry's website from Riverside County:

• Shopping Cart Announcements: When items were added to the online shopping cart, screen reader software failed to announce that the action occurred, making it impossible to verify the cart's contents and finalize transactions.
• Pickup Availability Interface: The screen reader could not read or announce the contents of the "Pickup Availability" dialog window, preventing the selection of an in-store pickup location.

The plaintiff asserted that these barriers prevented order collection at a local brick-and-mortar retail location at Promenade Temecula in Temecula, California.

Grounds for Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

Tapestry moved to transfer the action to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to any judicial district where the lawsuit might have been brought for the convenience of parties and witnesses.

The court determined that venue is proper in the Central District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the plaintiff attempted to use the website from Riverside County and sought to access physical stores within that district.

In balancing convenience and the interests of justice, the court highlighted several key factors:

• Witness Convenience: Under ADA case law governing web accessibility in the Ninth Circuit, plaintiffs must establish a "nexus" between the online service and a physical place of public accommodation. Tapestry identified specific store managers and retail employees in the Central District who could testify regarding in-store accessibility procedures and pickup policies. While employees involved in website design work out of New York and New Jersey, their travel burden would be equal to either California district.
• Parties and Counsel: The named plaintiff, both parties' attorneys of record, and the relevant local stores are located in the Central District.
• Deference to Forum Choice: While the initial lawsuit was filed in the Northern District, the substituted plaintiff resides in the Central District, and none of the core events involving the current named plaintiff took place in the Northern District.
• Judicial Economy: The court noted that class certification had not yet been briefed—with hearings set for April 2026—and trial is not scheduled until March 2026, meaning transfer will not disrupt proceedings.

Accordingly, the motion to transfer venue was granted, and the case was ordered transferred to the Central District of California.

Source: U.S. Courts (govinfo.gov)