ADA / Web Accessibility
Premium
$500
Captured Jun 7, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #699
What's for sale here is a dated, hashed snapshot of a defendant's live tracking behavior, marketing representations, and consent UX, sealed under FRE 901 chain of custody on the day we captured it. Defendants rewrite their policies and pull their pixels the moment a complaint lands — this record is the only proof of what the site was doing before.
Case at a glance
LocationU.S. · operates nationally
Nat'l classScope varies — ADA Title III
ArbitrationClass-viable — browsewrap, likely unenforceable
ClaimsADA Title III / Robles v. Domino's (9th Cir.) / Unruh Civil Rights Act / NY State Human Rights Law
**ADA Title III / Web Accessibility**
This tease concerns an AI services platform defendant. The case theory rests on ADA Title III compliance under *Robles v. Domino's* (9th Cir.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and NY State Human Rights Law. The platform's website contains 10 accessibility violations across scanned pages, preventing screen-reader users and keyboard-only navigators from accessing core functionality. Third-party trackers numbering 259 were fired during the audit, raising questions about data collection practices during user interaction with inaccessible interfaces.
No verbatim representations were captured. Evidence is sealed and unclassified pending buyer review. Chain-of-custody maintained across 26 screenshots. Sealed PDF spans approximately 15–25 pages.
Case theory: ADA Title III / Robles
What you receive
- Sealed PDF report (typical 15–28 pp) with full chain of custody — SHA-256 + RFC 3161 timestamps on every artifact
- Verbatim binding representations with Wayback-anchored class-period bounds
- Full network capture: every tracker fire, sensitive transmission, identity-sync event
- Wrap classification: BROWSEWRAP / CLICKWRAP / SIGN-IN-WRAP verdict + Specht-line alignment
- Per-circuit case-law alignment (LIKELY_UNENFORCEABLE / LIKELY_ENFORCEABLE / JURISDICTIONALLY_DEPENDENT)
- Defendant name + domain — revealed at purchase
✓ Prior-litigation check: clear.
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant on this theory
(CourtListener federal + web search of state courts, checked 2026-06-07).
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant in this lane.
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant in this lane.