Federal Magistrate Recommends Default Injunction and Damages in Spa Website Accessibility Lawsuit

In a report and recommendation issued on August 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part a plaintiff's motion for default judgment in an accessibility lawsuit against Couple Spa 65, Inc. The pending recommendation follows the defendant's failure to respond to the lawsuit.

Background of the Case

The action was initiated on July 13, 2023, by a blind resident of Queens, New York, who relies on screen-reading software to browse the web. The lawsuit claimed that Couple Spa 65, Inc., which operates a physical wellness facility at 320 East 65th Street in New York, maintained an inaccessible website (Thecouplespa.com).

According to the complaint, the plaintiff attempted to browse the site on July 7 and July 8, 2023, to find information about treatments, pricing, opening hours, and location. The plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers, including:

• Inaccurate heading hierarchy
• Inadequate focus order
• Ambiguous link texts
• Lack of alternative text (alt-text) on graphics
• Inaccurate drop-down menus
• Features requiring transactions to be performed exclusively with a mouse

The plaintiff filed claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The complaint initially sought to represent a nationwide class, but the plaintiff did not move for class certification. Consequently, default judgment was evaluated solely on an individual basis.

Standing and Liability

The court found that the plaintiff established standing under the ADA and New York law by demonstrating past injury, plausible continued lack of access, and an intent to return to the site and visit the physical facility once accessible.

The magistrate judge determined that commercial websites linked to physical places of public accommodation are subject to Title III of the ADA. Because the defendant failed to respond and was placed in default, the factual allegations were accepted as true, establishing liability under federal, state, and local civil rights statutes.

Recommended Remedies and Next Steps

To measure accessibility, the court referenced the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA. The magistrate judge recommended that the presiding district judge order the following relief:

• Injunctive Relief: Issue an injunction prohibiting further discrimination and ordering the defendant to make the website accessible in line with WCAG 2.0. The proposed timeline requires the defendant to submit a remediation plan to plaintiff's counsel within 60 days of an order adopting the recommendation. The plaintiff would then have 30 days to consent or seek further court relief, after which the defendant must implement the alterations within 60 days.
• Compensatory Damages: Award the plaintiff $1,000 in compensatory damages under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, reducing the plaintiff's requested amount of $1,500 due to a lack of evidence demonstrating specific harm beyond the discrimination itself.
• Declaratory Relief: Deny declaratory relief as moot and unnecessary in light of the injunction.
• Attorney's Fees: Direct the plaintiff to file a motion for reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs within 30 days of the adoption of the report.

The parties were given 14 days from the filing date to lodge formal objections to the report and recommendation before the district judge decides whether to adopt it.

Details can be reviewed in the court records via govinfo.gov.