A new lawsuit claims that a major retailer’s website fails to provide equal access to customers with visual disabilities, raising questions about digital accessibility requirements under federal and state law. The complaint was filed by Marissa Tejeda in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 26, 2026, naming 7-Eleven, Inc. as the defendant.
According to the court filing, Tejeda alleges that 7-Eleven’s website (https://www.7-eleven.com), which also includes its delivery platform “7NOW,” is not accessible to blind individuals who rely on screen-reading software. The plaintiff states that this lack of accessibility violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA). Tejeda seeks injunctive relief requiring 7-Eleven to remediate its website, compensatory damages for emotional distress and dignitary harm, attorney’s fees, costs, and any other relief deemed fair by the court.
The complaint outlines that Tejeda is blind and uses VoiceOver screen-reading technology on macOS computers to navigate websites independently. On February 28, 2026, Tejeda attempted to place an online order from a 7-Eleven store located at 2397 South Mission Street in Mount Pleasant, Michigan but was unable to complete the transaction due to what are described as multiple accessibility errors present on the company’s website.
Tejeda reports encountering several types of barriers during this attempt: unlabeled buttons creating confusion; page regions labeled in ways that made navigation difficult; links with generic or non-descriptive text; interactive elements without programmatically associated labels; images used as links without alternative text; links presented without actual destinations; mismatches between visible labels and those announced by assistive technology; unexpected opening of new browser tabs without warning; interactive elements lacking descriptive names or failing to announce their current state; and improper formatting causing confusion between buttons and links.
The complaint references internationally recognized Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard widely accepted for evaluating web accessibility. It asserts that violations encountered by Tejeda constitute failures at even Level A compliance—the most basic level—making parts of the site unusable for some people with disabilities. The filing notes that these issues could be remedied through elementary changes such as adding alternative text for images or proper labeling of buttons but claims either no meaningful accessibility testing has been conducted or known barriers have been left unaddressed.
Tejeda argues that requiring disabled customers to call a store or rely on sighted assistance does not meet legal obligations under either PWDCRA or ADA: “The law requires equal access, not separate and inferior alternatives.” The complaint further states that inaccessible websites deprive blind individuals of independence, privacy, convenience, and equal participation in commerce—benefits readily available to non-disabled users through online shopping platforms.
Both federal and state claims are detailed in separate counts within the lawsuit. Under PWDCRA, Tejeda asserts a right to “full and equal utilization of public accommodations” without discrimination based on disability—including digital services directly connected to physical retail locations. Under Title III of the ADA, it is alleged that denying access via auxiliary aids such as screen readers constitutes unlawful discrimination unless providing such access would fundamentally alter business operations or create undue burden—conditions which Tejeda contends do not apply here.
The plaintiff requests several forms of relief from the court: monetary damages for emotional injuries including humiliation, frustration, embarrassment, loss of independence, feelings of segregation or exclusion; reasonable attorney’s fees; pre- and post-judgment interest; permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of ADA requirements; mandatory remediation steps bringing the website into compliance with accessibility standards; costs associated with litigation; and any other remedies deemed appropriate by the court.
The case was filed by attorney William R. Frush Jr. of F&S Law PLLC (P87016), representing Marissa Tejeda. The case number is 1:26-cv-01004.
Source: 126cv01004_Marissa_Tejada_v_7_Eleven_Complaint_Western_District_of_Michigan.pdf
