Case: Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company
0:24-cv-00950 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Filed Date: March 15, 2024
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case, brought by legally blind Minnesota residents, alleged that an inaccessible website was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act against an inaccessible website. Plaintiffs sued Lions Brand Yarn Company on March 15, 2024, in U.S. District Court in the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs, legally blind residents of Minnesota, set forth in their complaint that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., applies to online spaces and websites of public accommodations; accommodations compliant with the ADA include navigable features compatible with screen reader technology. Lion Brand Yarn Company is a company that produces knitting and craft yarn, and maintains an interactive, online business presence (www.lionbrand.com). Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s website was not accessible to screen-reader users: Among other barriers, defendant’s website failed to alert screen readers to pop-up window contents, and maintained content which it did not make accessible to screen readers, such as in the form of non-text images, unordered lists, or color-coding. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s website was not made fully and equally accessible to low-vision and/or blind individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in federal law and the Minnesota Human Rights Act in state law.
Plaintiffs sought relief in the form of a class action and a permanent injunction, which would require defendants to change their corporate policies and ensure that their website and online offerings are made fully, equally, and independently accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Plaintiffs noted that as web-based technologies are regularly updated, a “one-time fix” is not an appropriate vehicle for injunctive-relief here: instead, a change in corporate policy is necessary to ensure long-term and continuing compliance with the ADA.
The matter was assigned to Judge Katherine M. Menendez.
On June 7, 2024, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. In its motion, defendant argued that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for a violation of Title III of the ADA, because the statute applies to “places of public accommodation.” Defendant argued that its website does not constitute a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the statute.
On July 12, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The court made an order on July 16, 2024, noting that, as plaintiffs had amended their complaint, defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot. On July 30, 2024, defendant re-filed their motion to dismiss, which was substantially the same as their original motion to dismiss.
On February 6, 2025, the court issued its order, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 765 F.Supp.3d 808. In responding to defendant’s claim that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a cognizable claim, the court observed that Title III of the ADA provides a broad definition of “public accommodation”, including places such as restaurants, movie theaters, and places of education. The court observed that websites were not expressly included as an example of a place of public accommodation, and that there was a circuit split (unresolved in the Eighth Circuit, where this matter was being heard) on whether a place of public accommodation must be a physical structure. Here, the court held that a website – even if it is not a physical structure – is a public accommodation for purposes of Title III of the ADA. The court held that while the statutory language itself left this issue open to interpretation, the was persuaded by the line of district court caselaw which took an expansive view on what fell within the scope of the ADA. Therefore, as defendant’s website constitutes a “place of public accommodation”, the court ruled it appropriate to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Since the motion to dismiss, pretrial scheduling notice and order has been released. However, no other significant case developments have occurred, and the case is pending further updates as of April 13, 2025.
Summary Authors
Keren Yi (5/9/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68419875/parties/frost-v-lion-brand-yarn-company/
Menendez, Katherine M (Minnesota)
Gustafson, Jason D (Minnesota)
Michenfelder, Patrick W (Minnesota)
Rusie, Jennifer S. (Minnesota)
Zwilling, Jennifer M (Minnesota)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68419875/frost-v-lion-brand-yarn-company/
Last updated July 1, 2026, 7:35 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Accommodations/ Contracting/ Organizational Discrimination
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 15, 2024
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are legally blind residents of Minnesota
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Lions Brand Yarn Company
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:24-cv-00950
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Disability and Disability Rights:
Screen readers and similar accessibility devices
Case Summary of Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46250/ (last updated 5/9/2025).