DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff Sam Wilson, who is blind, alleges that Defendant The Fabric Cellar, an online fabric retailer, has denied him access to its website, www.fabricguru.com, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant initially moved to dismiss Wilson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that it was made moot by subsequent improvements that Defendant made to its website. (Docket No. 10.) Wilson then moved to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 15.) His proposed First Amended Complaint alleges that, even after Defendant’s claimed improvements, he is still not able to access Defendant’s website using assistive technology.1 (Docket No. 15-1.) For the following reasons, Wilson’s motion to amend will be granted and Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. II. BACKGROUND This Court assumes the truth of the following factual allegations contained in Wilson’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S. Ct. 1848, 48 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1976); see also Hamilton Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi, Inc. v. Hamilton Coll., 128 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1997). Plaintiff Sam Wilson is a resident of Amherst, New York. (FAC, Docket No. 15-3, 17.) He is legally blind. (Id.) Defendant The Fabric Cellar, dba Fabric Guru (“Fabric Cellar”), is a Alabama corporation. (Id., 2.) Defendant is a “leader in the design, development, manufacture, and distribution of fashion fabrics, home décor, and similar products, under its recognized brand Fabric Guru.” (Id., 4.) Consumers may purchase Defendant’s products at its website, https://www.fabricguru.com (“the Website”). (Id., 5.) Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant’s website from his home but was unable to understand it or derive benefit from it because of its incompatibility with screen reader programs.2 (Id., 23). On the Website, the account icon and the hamburger menu (icon of three horizontal bars) are not labeled and are announced as “unpronounceable;” the Cart icon is incorrectly announced only as “zero link;” the search chevron and icon are not labeled, and the chevron is announced as “unpronounceable.” (Id., 23 (a).) A “new product filter” that allows users to search based on price range is not announced correctly, even with the “widget” on.3 (Id., 23 (b).) The elements of the widget itself are not announced, so that the only way to edit the widget — that is, to adjust accessibility elements such as font size — is to physically change them on screen, which a blind user would be unable to do. (Id., 23 (d).) Plaintiff does not specify what kind of screen reader he used in his attempts to access the Website. His FAC contains screenshots of access attempts from what appears to be a mobile telephone (id.,
