The Alastin class action is not the kind that ends with a check in the mail. The proposed class action filed against Alastin Skincare, Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. on September 28, 2026 claims that alastin.com cannot be used by blind shoppers who rely on screen-reading software. For the nationwide class it proposes, it asks for one thing: a court order making the website accessible. There’s no settlement, no certified class and nothing to claim.
Status: Complaint filed September 28, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | Case: McLean v. Alastin Skincare, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-08451 | Claim form: none
What the Complaint Alleges
The plaintiff is a legally blind Bronx County resident who uses the NVDA screen reader and navigates by keyboard. The complaint says she tried to shop alastin.com on June 11, June 13 and August 12, 2026. She was looking at Alastin’s anti-aging line, including Restorative Skin Complex with TriHex+, Ultra Nourishing Moisturizer, A-LUMINATE Brightening Serum and HydraTint Pro Mineral Sunscreen SPF 36.
According to the filing, her screen reader announced product photos only as “image,” and read controls aloud as “button,” “link” or “blank,” with nothing to say what they did. Pop-ups appeared without any alert, and carousels moved with no way to pause them. Unlabeled form fields hid the subscription options, the quantity selector and the “Add to Bag” button. She says she couldn’t tell products apart or finish a purchase on any of the three visits.
Her lawyers back this up with automated scans they ran on May 25, 2026 using WAVE, a free accessibility checker. The complaint reports 73 errors on the homepage, 88 on the Restorative Skin Complex product page and 33 on the Anti-Aging category page, measured against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. The companies have not responded in court, and none of these allegations has been tested.
Why the Nationwide Class Gets No Money
The lead claim is under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination by businesses open to the public. The complaint argues that includes an online store. Title III has an important limit: when a private person sues under it, the court can order the business to change what it does and award attorneys’ fees, but it can’t award money damages to that person.
That’s why the proposed nationwide class, covering every legally blind person in the U.S. who tried to use alastin.com and was shut out, is brought under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That part of the class action rule is for cases seeking a single order that applies to everyone, not individual payments. If the plaintiff wins or settles on those terms, the benefit to class members is a website they can use, not a payment.
Where the Money Claims Are
The dollar amounts in the complaint come from New York law, not federal law:
| New York Civil Rights Law, sections 40 and 41 | A penalty of $100 to $500 per violation. The complaint demands $500. |
| New York State Human Rights Law | Compensatory damages, civil penalties and fines |
| New York City Human Rights Law | Compensatory damages, civil penalties and punitive damages |
| Federal ADA Title III | A court order and attorneys’ fees only |
Those state and city claims are pleaded for the plaintiff and a proposed New York subclass of legally blind New York residents who tried to use the site. Even in the best case for the plaintiff, the money is aimed at New Yorkers and mainly at the named plaintiff. Nothing in the complaint asks for a nationwide fund.
When a Website Accessibility Case Does Pay
Class payouts in these cases are unusual, but they do happen. The Fashion Nova website accessibility settlement was a $5.15 million class settlement that let legally blind California shoppers claim up to $4,000 each. It could pay that much because it was brought under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, a state law that provides statutory damages. The Alastin complaint relies on New York law instead and doesn’t seek that kind of class-wide fund.
Most website accessibility suits in New York federal court end another way: an individual settlement with the named plaintiff plus a promise to fix the site, with no class settlement anyone else can join. OpenClassActions.com’s report on the wave of ADA website accessibility lawsuits explains how these cases are filed and why class members rarely see money from them. Our own breakdown of the Minnesota ADA website suits follows the same pattern: a court order to fix the site, and no payout.
Alastin Has Been Sued Over This Before
The complaint says this is not Alastin’s first accessibility suit. It cites Campbell v. Alastin Skincare, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-03671, an ADA case in the same court that federal docket records show was filed on May 2, 2023. According to the new complaint, the barriers in that case were “substantially similar” and were never fixed. The complaint uses that history to argue that only a court order will get the site fixed. It’s still the plaintiff’s description; no court has made that finding.
Galderma is named because of who owns the brand. Galderma, the dermatology company behind Cetaphil and Differin (the subject of a separate Differin benzene settlement), completed its acquisition of Alastin in January 2022. The complaint also points to “GALDERMA – EST. 1981” branding in the website’s footer.
Signs the Filing Was Adapted From Other Cases
Parts of the complaint appear to have been carried over from suits against other retailers. It refers to the plaintiff once as “Mr. Soto” and in places as “he.” It says missing image descriptions kept her from identifying “shoe style,” it mentions choosing “sizes and colorways,” and it describes Alastin as marketing “sunglasses and eyewear.” Alastin sells skincare. None of this changes the core accessibility claims, but it’s the kind of drafting a defense lawyer is likely to point out. It’s also common in high-volume ADA website filings, where one firm files many near-identical complaints.
What Happens Next
Alastin and Galderma have to be served and then respond. Common early defenses in these cases are that the plaintiff lacks standing, that the website has already been fixed so there’s nothing left to order, or that the case should be dismissed or resolved individually. If the case ever produces a class settlement with money for class members, the full terms will be tracked on the OpenClassActions.com Alastin lawsuit page. As filed, the complaint doesn’t ask for one.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there an Alastin class action settlement I can file for?
No. McLean v. Alastin Skincare, Inc. was filed on September 28, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form. Be wary of any site or message asking you to sign up for an Alastin payout.
Why doesn’t the Alastin lawsuit ask for money for class members?
The nationwide claim is brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Private plaintiffs under Title III can win a court order and attorneys’ fees but not money damages, so the nationwide class asks only for an order requiring Alastin to make alastin.com accessible.
Who could get money if the case succeeds?
The complaint’s money claims come from New York law, including a penalty of $100 to $500 per violation under the New York Civil Rights Law and damages under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. They are pleaded for the plaintiff and a proposed New York subclass of legally blind residents.
Is Galderma a defendant in the Alastin case?
Yes. The complaint names Galderma Laboratories, L.P. alongside Alastin Skincare, Inc., alleging on information and belief that Galderma owns or controls Alastin and pointing to Galderma branding in the website footer. Galderma completed its acquisition of Alastin in January 2022.
Does the lawsuit claim Alastin products are harmful?
No. The case is only about whether the website works with screen-reading software. It makes no allegation about the safety, ingredients or labeling of any Alastin product.
Sources
- McLean v. Alastin Skincare, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-08451 (S.D.N.Y.), docket via CourtListener (Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, filed September 28, 2026)
- Campbell v. Alastin Skincare, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-03671 (S.D.N.Y.), docket via CourtListener
- Galderma, “Galderma successfully completes acquisition of ALASTIN Skincare,” January 5, 2022
- U.S. Department of Justice, Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA
- OpenClassActions.com: Alastin Skincare Class Action Says Its Website Locks Out Blind Shoppers
Source and credit: this report builds on our sister site’s coverage — OpenClassActions.com: Alastin Skincare Class Action Says Its Website Locks Out Blind Shoppers — which follows the case and is updated as new filings, orders and payment news come in.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. OpenClassActions.org is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with any party to the matters described. Allegations are allegations until a court rules on them, and court schedules and outcomes can change.