Dirksen Federal Courthouse, Chicago
CHICAGO — A federal judge has sealed off a class action in which a person with visual impairment sued a candy company based on allegations its website isn’t significantly accessible.
In an opinion filed July 2, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso said Livingston Bennett — whom he described as a serial “tester plaintiff” — can’t continue his Americans with Disabilities Act complaint against Sweet Candy Company based on a lack of standing.
Bennett, according to Alonso, “has filed 38 complaints since September 2025 seeking relief under the ADA.” In this action, he sought a court order forcing the company to correct the defects making it unusable for customers with certain visual limitations.
Alonso explained an ADA plaintiff must allege, among other things, frequent visits along with proximity and intent to return to a business pending correction of supposed violations. He cited a 2023 case from the Eastern District of New York, Winegard v. Golftec Intellectual Property, regarding ADA applicability to websites, in which a judge observed “everyone’s computer is proximate” to a website and further that a complaint based on the Internet can survive a dismissal motion by including “non-conclusory, plausible factual allegations from which it is reasonable to infer, based on the past frequency of visits and the plaintiff’s articulated interest in the products or services available on the particular website, that the plaintiff intends to return to the website.”
But Bennett didn’t meet that bar, Alonso explained, with a complaint that alleged he’s “interested in the confectionery products offered on sweetcandy.com. The website showcases a wide range of candy items, including chocolates, gummies, and hard candies, designed to appeal to a variety of tastes. He is particularly drawn to the website’s emphasis on traditional recipes, curated product selections, and the opportunity to discover nostalgic and flavorful treats crafted with quality ingredients. Therefore, (he) would like to order such products to be shipped directly to his home from the (website). If the Court does not intervene, (his) injury will continue. (He) still wants to purchase chocolate sticks on the (website).”
Because those descriptions are generic and could apply “to many thousands of websites that sell candy,” Alonso wrote, the complaint lacks the necessary “concrete ties or reasons that support an intent to return specifically to defendant’s website.”
Again quoting Winegard, Alonso said to “find standing on the paltry allegations here would allow any sensory-impaired person to sit down at their computer, visit 50 websites (possibly after being referred to them by their non-sensory-impaired lawyer), and bring 50 lawsuits. Standing requires more.”
He further said Winegard addressed the concept of a tester plaintiff, specifically in the context of modern online shopping, holding that when “a tester plaintiff discovers and is offended by ADA violations on a website, but that website has no actual, specific relevance to that particular plaintiff beyond the plaintiff’s desire to seek out and remedy ADA violations, no concrete and particularized injury has been alleged.”
Bennett is represented by attorney Alison Chan, of the Equal Access Law Group, of Brooklyn, New York.
Bennett has partnered the Equal Access Law Group in his dozens of other lawsuits in which he served as a "tester plaintiff," similarly targeting businesses over their website accessibility for the visually impaired.
