OPINION AND ORDER In this action, Plaintiff Edward Diaz claims that the website of Defendant The Kroger Co. is not compliant with Title III of the Americans with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (the “ADA”); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§290 to 297 (the “NYSHRL”); the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§8-101 to 8-131 (the “NYCHRL”); and the New York Civil Rights Law §§40-41 (the “NYCRL”), because the website denies equal access to visually-impaired customers. Defendant moves to dismiss under two different subparts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b): under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In relevant part, Defendant claims that it has remedied the barriers to access in its website, and that it does not conduct business in New York State. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted.BACKGROUND1A. Factual BackgroundPlaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind individual who resides in the Bronx, New York. (FAC
2, 11). Defendant is a supermarket chain, with a principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Id. at 20; Whiting Decl. 3).2 In addition to maintaining brick and mortar locations, none of which is located in New York State (Whiting Decl. 6), Defendant operates the website www.kroger.com (the “Website”), from which consumers may purchase goods for delivery (FAC 23). The Website also provides information on Kroger promotions and coupons, as well as the calorie content and optimal cook time for certain food items. (Id.).Plaintiff alleges that the Website denies equal access to blind customers. (FAC 4). Specifically, Defendant has allegedly failed to “design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.” (Id.). According to Plaintiff, visually-impaired customers cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software, which converts online content to an audio format. (Id. at 25). For this software to function, the information on a website must be capable of being rendered into text. (Id. at 12). Otherwise, visually-impaired customers are unable to access the same content available to sighted users. (Id. at 17).Plaintiff visited the Website on several occasions, with the last visit occurring in November 2018. (FAC 26). During those visits, Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers, including the inability of information to be rendered into text. (Id. at
