1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number:__________________-CIV-_____________________

RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOTTEGA VENETA INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF 

 COMES NOW, Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg (“Plaintiff “or “Mahlberg”), by 

and through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Permanent Injunctive Relief pursuant to 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 

(“ADA”), 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202 as well as 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. Plaintiff state as 

follows:

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question Jurisdiction, 

as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the provisions of the ADA. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and 

injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

2. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person (disabled) who requires 

assistance through screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff 

uses the term “blind” or “visually impaired” as legally blind. Disable as defined by ADA and 

Amendment acts of 2008, 42 USC §12101 (ADAAA).

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 19
2

3. Defendant’s website https://www.bottegaveneta.com/en-us (the 

“Website”) are not fully or equally accessible to blind or visually impaired consumers in 

violation of the “ADA.” As a result, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in

BOTTEGA VENETA, INC (“Defendant” or “Bottega Veneta”) policies, practices and 

procedures so that Defendant’s Website will become, and remain, accessible to blind. Plaintiff 

seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including, but not limited to, court costs and 

expert fees, pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a). See also 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 

as well as ADA 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. 

4. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities, and capacities of all responsible 

parties (defendants) being sued. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the 

true names and capacities if and when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 

thereupon alleges, that Defendant is legally responsible in some manner for the events and 

happenings alleged herein and that Defendant sued here proximately caused injuries and damages 

to Plaintiff as set forth below.

5. Plaintiff is sui juris, and he is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). Defendant’s failure to design, build, 

maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently 

operational by Plaintiff, constitutes in Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to physical 

stores and Website, resulting in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 19
3

6. Defendant’s Website is a point of sale for the Defendant physical store. The 

Defendant’s e-commerce platform (https://www.bottegaveneta.com/en-us “Website”) allows 

purchase of the same merchandise online or at the brick-mortar store.

7. The Defendant owns and operates the Website for desktop and mobile

application for e-commerce and several clothing stores that are located in Florida. 

8. Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant’s physical 

stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(E), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

9. Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg, a blind veteran of the U.S. military, residing in 

Orlando, Florida brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in Federal Court. 

10. Blind and visually impaired citizens must use screen reading software1or other 

assistive technologies in order to access Website content. 

11. Plaintiff cannot use his computer and mobile device browser without the 

assistance of appropriate and available screen reader software to understand website.

12. Defendant’s Website is built in digital code that impedes screen-reader

software to work. A few lines of code could make the Defendant’s Website compatible with the 

popular blind’s screen-readers software and grant access to Defendant’s store to all blind 

individuals, including Plaintiff.

13.Screen reader software translates the visual internet into an auditory equivalent. 

which vocalizes visual information found on the computer screen. With this software, Plaintiff 

has successfully used more than 400 websites.

1

“screen reader” is a software application that enables people with severe visual impairments to use a computer. 

Screen readers work closely with the computer's Operating System (OS) to verbalize information about icons, menus, 

dialogue boxes, files and folders.

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 3 of 19
4

14. The software reads the content of a webpage to the user. The screen reading 

software uses auditory cues to allow a visually impaired user to effectively navigate the websites.

15. Plaintiff visited the Website when at home, or on the go or in transit when 

visiting other cities. The purpose of the Website is to turn visitors into prospects. One of the 

functions of the Defendant’s Website is to provide the public information on the locations of 

Defendant’s stores through a “store locator” feature. Defendant also sells to the public its 

merchandise through the Website, which acts as a point of sale for Defendant’s merchandise 

available in, from, and through Defendant’s physical stores and

https://www.bottegaveneta.com/en-us

16. This case arises out of the fact that Defendant Bottega Veneta has operated its 

business in a manner and way that effectively excluding Plaintiff who are visually impaired from 

access to Defendant physical stores and online store (the Website). Because the Website, an ecommerce online platform, carries the same products in the physical store and connects

individuals to make a purchase on the Website 24/7, the same way they would in the physical 

store (during limited hours 10am to 8pm). The Website has a nexus to, and is an extension of and 

gateway to the Defendant’s physical stores. 

17. Because the public can view and purchase Defendant’s goods through the 

Website that are also offered for sale in Defendant’s physical stores, thus having the Website act 

as a point of sale for Defendant’s products that are also sold in the physical stores, arrange instore and curbside pickups of merchandise purchased online benefits for use online and in the 

physical stores, the Website is an extension of and gateway to the physical stores, which are places 

of public accommodation pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E).

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 4 of 19
5

18. Even if the Website is not itself a place of public accommodation the 

Defendant’s physical stores are a place of public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E),

and must comply with all requirements of the ADA. The Website is an extension and a necessary 

service, privilege, and advantage of the Defendant’s physical stores. Defendant must not 

discriminate against individuals with visual disabilities and must not deny those individuals the 

same full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages 

afforded the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical stores. 

19. As a result of Plaintiff being legally blind, before he embarks on any venture 

from his home, Plaintiff studies the location where Plaintiff is seeking to patronize through using 

the internet. Plaintiff has made innumerous attempts to access Defendant’s physical store and 

Website in the past, but Plaintiff could not locate the nearest store thru the Website neither preshop the Defendant’s merchandise because the Website is not readable by the screen-reader.

20. Plaintiff intends to continue to access the Defendant’s physical store and make 

a purchase thru the Website and pick up at curbside or just pre-shop. Plaintiff was informed that 

there is one of the Defendant’s physical store near Plaintiff’s home, and at 135 NE 41st Street -

space No. 113, Miami FL 33137.

21. Plaintiff is and has been a customer who is interested in patronizing and intends 

to patronize in the near future Defendant’s physical stores once the Website(s)’s access barriers 

are removed or remedied. The barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s Website(s) have 

impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered at Defendant’s brickand mortar stores.

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 5 of 19
6

22. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the Website in the near future, 

as a tester, to ascertain whether the Website has been updated and remedied to work properly with 

screen-readers.

23. Before Plaintiff visited Defendant’s physical store, Plaintiff needs to visit the 

store online, because the opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendant’s products from Plaintiff’s 

home are important accommodations for Plaintiff; because as a visually disabled individual

Plaintiff plans his outings in advance.

24. Plaintiff is impeded to access and communicate with Defendant effectively, 

unable to take advantage and use one of the Defendant’s Website to pre-shop and purchase

Defendant’s merchandise, to arrange in-store and curbside pickups of merchandise purchased 

online, create an account and sign up for an electronic emailer to receive exclusive online offers, 

benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online and in the physical stores.

25. The privilege to navigate the Website(s) from Plaintiff’s home is important 

and necessary accommodations for Plaintiff because traveling outside of his home as a visually 

disabled individual is an often challenging and fearsome experience. Defendant’s failure to 

provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communications is an act of discrimination 

against Plaintiff. Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

26. However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue 

and required to change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on Defendant’s 

Website(s), Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to Bottega Veneta’s physical stores 

and the Website. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 6 of 19
7

27. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 

U.S.C. §1331, and the provisions of the ADA. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

 28. Defendant have several shops in the State of Florida. Defendant conducts and 

continues to conduct a substantial and significant amount of business in this District.

 29. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, in the Southern District of Florida

where defendant has retail stores and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims 

occurred. Personal jurisdiction exists when the Defendant purposefully availed itself of the 

conducting activities within the forum State.

 30. Plaintiff’s claims asserted herein arose in this judicial district. Plaintiff was told 

that there is a Bottega Veneta’s store near his home.

31. Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, FL 32817. is sui juris, and is disabled as 

defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). 

 32. This is an action injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. § 36.201 and to prevent 

discrimination which includes equal access and effective communications with Defendant’s 

business. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 

 33. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been 

and is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of Florida that 

caused injury, and violated rights prescribed by the ADA to Plaintiff. A substantial part of the acts 

and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 

Specifically, on several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of 

the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s Website in Florida. The access barriers Plaintiff 

encountered on Defendant’s Website has caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 7 of 19
8

multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing Defendant’s 

Website. Defendant Bottega Veneta is authorized to conduct, and is conducting, business within 

the State of Florida and within the jurisdiction of this court.

THE PARTIES

34. Plaintiff Mahlberg, is a resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff resides in 

Orlando. Mahlberg is legally blind, and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Whereby, 

he has a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), the regulations implementing 

the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq. and in 42 U.S.C. 3602, §802(h). Plaintiff suffered 

an assault to the back of his head in 2004 which caused damage and atrophy of the optic nerve, 

and as a consequence, is legally blind. Plaintiff is a legally blind individual who has a physical 

impairment that substantially limits the major life activity of seeing. Accordingly, Mahlberg has a 

disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Plaintiff is a qualified 

individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), 29 U.S. Code § 794 and 

28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 

35. Plaintiff cannot use the computer without the assistance of a screen reader 

software. Mahlberg is a proficient user of the JAWS screen-reader to access the internet." JAWS, 

or "Job Access With Speech," uses keyboards keys to navigate the website by reading loud the 

website. For screen-reading software to work, the information on a website must be capable of 

being rendered into text-description. A description of the image, icons and navigate in an organized 

order. 

36. Bottega Veneta Inc is a foreign for profit corporation. Defendant is the owner

and operator of a chain of several of fashion clothing stores under the brand name Bottega Veneta. 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 8 of 19
9

Bottega Veneta produces and distributes Bottega Veneta fashion clothing to its shops and 

distributors in Florida.

37. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Bottega 

Veneta owns, operates, and/or manages the day-to-day affairs of Bottega Veneta fashion stores

which are operating within the State of Florida. Defendant’s store are public accommodations 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E).

38. Plaintiff believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant Bottega Veneta

corporation and affiliates and/or related entities, actively engaged in the sale of apparel in various 

states throughout the country, including Florida. 

39. Said Defendant entities will hereinafter collectively be referred to as “Bottega 

Veneta” or, where appropriate, “Defendant.”

FACTS

40. Defendant is defined as a “Place of Public Accommodation" within meaning of 

Title III because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] bakery, grocery 

store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales establishment,” 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(5). 

41. Each of Defendant Bottega Veneta stores are open to the public and each is a 

Place of Public Accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA and its

implementing regulation as “[A] ... other sales establishment,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E); §12182, and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

42. Bottega Veneta offers fashion clothing and accessories for sale to the general 

public.

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 9 of 19
10

43. Defendant has control over several points of sale including the Website, its

content, design and source-code, and/or operates his web pages, including image and data 

content. Defendant owns and operate the domain name https://www.bottegaveneta.com/en-us 

that is configured for use by desktop computer and mobile devices such as smartphones. 

44. One of the functions of Defendant’s Website (available to browse in mobile or 

computer version) is to provide the public information on the various locations of Defendant’s 

stores that sell fashion clothing and accessories. The other function of the Website is to sell 

Defendant’s products. 

45. Defendant’s Website are offered by Defendant as a way for the public to 

communicate with Bottega Veneta’s fashion products. Defendant’s Website also permits the 

public to register and create an account allows the general public to order and purchase fashion 

clothing merchandise, provides: customer service and locate a shop. 

46. Blind Plaintiff needs to plan his outgoings since at the physical store it is 

difficult to know the prices, price tags are not in Braille. Like innumerous customers, Plaintiff 

rather to accesses Defendant’s Website since online purchase is faster or at least pre-purchase 

before Plaintiff goes to the store. Plaintiff has a concrete plan of visiting the store because Plaintiff 

admires the quality of Defendant’s products and would like to buy it in a regular basis. 

47. Plaintiff is a customer of Bottega Veneta’s stores since his intent to continue 

visiting an Bottega Veneta clothing store near his home. Plaintiff through his inquiries learned that 

there are a few Bottega Veneta’s shops in his area. 

48. During the month of August 2022, on several occasions, Plaintiff was denied 

access to Defendant’s Website, because the Website is incompatible to screen-reader software. 

Plaintiff explains that the Website contains the following access barriers that prevents him from

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 10 of 19
11

free and full use of screen reader software. Plaintiff encountered these barriers that are persistent 

and include, but are not limited to: 

a. Product images are mislabeled. Instead it should announce the image description-alt.

The issue is at https://youtu.be/oSr0OXpp7ck . 

b. At the product page, the images have the same id (it repeats: “display a large version of 

the product”), Using the same alt text on adjacent images results in screen readers stuttering as 

the same text is read out twice. The price is skipped and the size cannot be selected. Check the 

issues at https://youtu.be/5O2Y4ROVxlY.

c. At the landing page images have no alt-description, or the images label is a link . The 

image announces the html link instead of the product description. Check the issue at 

https://youtu.be/1vaAo_fGFSk.

d. At the locate Store page, the address is inaccessible, because the screen-reader cannot 

read it. It skips the address and goes straight to the phone number. The issue was recorded at 

https://youtu.be/NUZPMi7K_KA.

e. The Website has poor color contrast.

f. Bad value for attribute role. The role attribute changes how screen readers voice 

content. Invalid values can result in content being misread.

49. Due to these barrier Plaintiff was unable and impeded to access: Plaintiff was 

unable to learn (1) Defendant’s store locations open in his area; (2) the cost of Defendant’s 

products; (3) buy a Polo shirt on the Website and pick up at curbside or at the nearest Defendant’s 

stores; (4) offers and discounts; and (5)product pricing and finalizing an online purchase. Thus, 

Defendant’s Website creates an intangible barrier that prevents Mahlberg from “’accessing a 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 11 of 19
12

privilege’ of a physical place of public accommodation, where Plaintiff cannot locate the 

defendant’s store, pre-purchase or make a purchase to pickup at the store.

50. During Plaintiff’s several visits to the Website using JAWS most popular 

screen-reader for computer and smartphone browsing, occurring on July 15, 2022 and the last on 

August 28, 2022, attempted to visit the physical store by checking the Website first, however the 

plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the 

facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied 

the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the Defendant’s facilities, goods, and services.

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

51. The failure to access the information needed precluded Plaintiff’s ability to 

patronize Bottega Veneta’s stores because, as a blind individual, Plaintiff needs to plan his outings 

out in detail in order to have the proper financing for a venture, and ensure that Plaintiff arrives at 

a given location. 

52. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189 (“Title III”), which 

addresses “Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities.” Title III provides 

that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in any place of public 

accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

53. Title III provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis 

of disability” in “any Place of Public Accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). As defined in Title 

III, the term “public accommodation” includes a “store and sales establishment” Id. § 12181(7)(E). 

Defendant Bottega Veneta Inc owns and operates stores, Bottega Veneta.

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 12 of 19
13

54. Binding Court acknowledged that Title III’s public accommodation protection 

“covers both tangible and intangible barriers, such as screening rules or discriminatory procedures 

that restrict a disabled person’s ability to enjoy the defendant entity’s services and privileges.

55. On March 18, 2022, The Department of Justice issued Web Accessibility 

Guidance under the Americans with Disability Act. It explains how businesses open to the public 

(entities covered by ADA Title III) can make sure their website is accessible to people with 

disabilities in line with the ADA’s requirements. (Exhibit A). The guidance discusses the 

importance of web accessibility, barriers that inaccessible websites create for people with 

disabilities, tips on making web content accessible and applied the Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.1 to determine accessibility. See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justicedepartment-issues-web-accessibility-guidance-under-americans-disabilities-act. 

56. Title III ADA Part 36 regulation was amended to integrate section 36.303

Auxiliary Aids and Services “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and 

services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.”

57. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s Website has 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 Defendant’s Website.

58. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the Defendant’s 

physical store and the Defendant’s Website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered 

on Defendant’s Website has impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services 

offered at Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores.

59. The fact that Plaintiff could not access the Defendant’s Website and could not 

comprehend the electronic pages contained therein, left Plaintiff excluded from accessing Bottega 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 13 of 19
14

Veneta’s stores, goods and services available from Defendant and further affects Plaintiff with the 

sense of segregation, rejection, isolation, humiliation, frustration and unable to participate in a 

manner equal to that afforded to others who are not similarly disabled. As a result, Plaintiff has 

suffered in a personal and individual way a particularized harm and an injury in fact.

60. Plaintiff cannot make proper arrangements for transportation of himself to the 

Bottega Veneta’s store locations without the ability to know in advance the Bottega Veneta’s

goods and services which service is available online through Defendant’s Website. Plaintiff also 

faces a great degree of uncertainty of how to physically travel to Defendant Bottega Veneta’s store 

location. Plaintiff is effectively denied the ability to physically travel to Defendant Bottega 

Veneta’s store. 

61. Plaintiff has a concrete plan to purchase Bottega Veneta’s clothing and 

accessories when Plaintiff is treated like other members of the public. By denying Plaintiff the 

opportunity to comprehend Bottega Veneta’s Website therein due to Plaintiff’s disability (visual 

impairment), Defendant has denied Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit from 

Defendant’s goods and services as afforded to the public. 

62. Plaintiff will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s omissions, 

policies, and practices set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. 

63. On information and belief, Defendant has not offered any form of Website in 

an accessible format for blind or visually impaired individuals. 

64. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal enjoyment of the services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided at its stores and authorized 

retailers.

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 14 of 19
15

65. All Public Accommodations must ensure that their Places of Public

Accommodation provide Effective Communication for all members of the general public, including 

individuals with disabilities pursuant Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

66. Binding case law increasingly recognize that private entities are providing 

goods and services to the public through their online point of sale which operates as “Places of 

Public Accommodation” under Title III. 

67. A person who cannot see, like the Plaintiff in this case, cannot go to Defendant’s 

Website and avail themselves of the same privileges. Thus, the Plaintiff has suffered discrimination 

due to Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability. 

68. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the 

wrongs alleged hereinabove and this suit for injunctive relief is his only means to secure adequate 

redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices. 

69. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. Enforcement of the rights of Plaintiff is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 

2202. 

70. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Title III ADA Subpart E Section 36.501.

71. Plaintiff has retained the law office of Acacia Barros, Esq. and has agreed to 

pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this cause, including costs and expenses 

incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to have reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid by 

Defendant Bottega Veneta.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 15 of 19
16

72. Part 36 of Title 28 of the C.F.R. was designed and is implemented to effectuate 

subtitle of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by Public 

Accommodations and requires Places of Public Accommodation to be designed, constructed, and 

altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by Part 36 Regulation. 

73. Defendant’s Website has not been designed to interface with the widely and 

readily available technologies for blinds that can be used to ensure effective communication.

74. As delineated above and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), Defendant is a 

Public Accommodation under the ADA because it owns and/or operates the Website which is 

defined within §12181(7)(E), and is subject to the ADA.

75. No notice is required because under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of 

individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded 

to other individuals.

76. Unlawful discrimination includes “a failure to make reasonable modifications 

in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the 

nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(2)(A)(II). 

77. Unlawful discrimination also includes “a failure to take such steps as may be 

necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or 

otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 16 of 19
17

services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the 

nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or 

would result in an undue burden.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III).

78. Defendant is in violation of the ADA by creating barriers for individuals with 

disabilities who are visually impaired and who require the assistance of interface with screen reader 

software to comprehend and access its Website. These violations are ongoing.

79. As a result of the inadequate development and administration of Defendant’s 

Website, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and §12188, also 28 

C.F.R. §36.501 to remedy the discrimination.

80. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant 

Plaintiff Mahlberg injunctive relief; including an order to:

a) Require Defendant take the necessary steps to make all Defendant’s Website 

readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired users, and during that time period prior to the 

Website being readily accessible, to provide a temporary alternative method for individuals with 

visual impairments to access the information available on the Website until such time that the 

requisite modifications are made. Title III American with Disabilities Act Part 36 Regulation. 

b) Require Defendant to provide periodic maintenance of the accessible website 

thru the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with visual impairments will be able to 

always receive communication effectively with the Website for purposes of viewing and locating

Bottega Veneta’s stores and becoming informed of and signing up for Bottega Veneta’s clothing

products online, and of viewing electronic documents provided to the public within Defendant’s 

Website. 

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 17 of 19
18

c) During the time period prior to the Website’s being designed to permit 

individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate, requiring Defendant to provide 

an alternative method for individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate so they 

are not impeded from obtaining the goods and services made available to the public. Title III ADA 

Part 36 Regulation.

81. For all of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG hereby demands 

judgment against Defendant “Bottega Veneta Inc” and requests the following injunctive relief 

permanently enjoin Defendant from any practice, policy and/or procedure which will deny Plaintiff 

equal access to, and benefit from Defendant’s services and goods, as well as the Court:

a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant’s 

website at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; 

b. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and 

maintain their computer version of the defendant’s website to ensure that it remains fully 

accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals; 

c. That the Court issue an Injunctive relief order directing Defendant to alter their 

website to make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities to the full extent 

required by Title III of the ADA; 

d. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize their 

policies and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time so as to allow 

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 18 of 19
19

e. Further requests the Court to retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to 

ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause 

Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law; 

f. That the Court enter an award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Title III of the ADA Section 36.505.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated this 31st day of August 2022.

/s/Acacia Barros

Attorney for Plaintiff

ACACIA BARROS, P.A.

Acacia Barros, Esq.

FBN: 106277

11120 N. Kendall Dr., Suite 201

Miami, Florida 33176

Tel: 305-639-8381

ab@barroslawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 31st day of August, 2022 that the foregoing document has

been filed using CM/ECF system and will be served via email when

Defendant/Defendant’s counsel enters an appearance.

Case 1:22-cv-22776-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 19 of 19