In what is being called a landmark precedent for accessibility, Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled today that a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind. Target had filed for a dismissal by arguing that no law requires them to make an accessible website. The Court denied this motion and held that both federal and state civil laws apply to a website.
Some legal “mumbo-jumbo” for the wanna-be lawyers:
“The court held: “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of the ADA’s prohibition against discrimination in the enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges, is that whatever goods or services the place provides, it cannot discriminate on the basis of disability in providing enjoyment of those goods and services.” The court thus rejected Target’s argument that only its physical store locations were covered by the civil rights laws, ruling instead that all services provided by Target, including its Web site, must be accessible to persons with disabilities.”
Basically, Target tried to argue that accessibility only applied to the physical locations and not the website. The court disagreed saying that all services must be accessible to “persons with disabilities.”
While this is only a ruling on a plea for dismissal, and not the actual case decision, it is interesting to note that this court is NOT making a distinction between a physical store and its website. This is critical to the case that the National Federation of the Blind is making.
Today’s ruling is based more on California’s civil laws than the Federal accessibility laws, as Target specifically challenged the interpretation of civil rights laws in application to the Internet. Again, I see this as more of an interesting interpretation than a “landmark”. It’s more like legal wrangling of the terms and specific laws, codes, and issues involved, which is typical.
The last thing I think we need is a bunch of lawsuits on the heels of this one – just because we can. I tend to side with the free enterprise system where the consumer votes with his money. If web retailers are willing to ignore a large segment of the population, then they will pay the price in lost sales. It is my hope that someone will be creative enough to build something better, rather suing companies to make them change. Invention is much better than coercion.
[…] No question that this is the big news for this case today - but what will happen tomorrow? It’s entirely possible, now that a precedent has been set, that any number of follow-up lawsuits could be pressed. Matt Bailey suggests that this is the "last thing we need". He’s probably right - what is needed is to set a strong example, not go wild with the courts. Matt also mentions the important fact that web retailers pay the price of inaccessibility in lost sales - it would be very interesting to see a cost analysis demonstrating how many sales Target has lost due to accessibility issues. […]
Pingback by Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | Target Accessibility Case will go forward! — September 8, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
This is good news! But let’s not get too excited yet.
The NFB press release headline states, “retailers must make their websites accessible to the blind under the ADA.” Huh? I don’t see that anywhere in the ruling. The ruling simply states that the discrimination laws apply to the website. Whether the inaccessibility of the site is determined to be discrimination (and thus must be fixed) is yet to be determined.
Regardless, this is an important legal interpretation and precendence that many in the accessibility field have been looking for.
Yes, invention is much better than coercion, but on the other hand, it’s not like web accessibility is a brand new thing. While I don’t hope (nor anticipate) that there will be a flood of lawsuits, the precendence that this and a few other cases might bring should be enough to alert retailers to the need to get with the program.
Comment by Jared Smith — September 8, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
[…] Go read “Court Denies Target.com Plea for Dismissal,” from the Web Site Accessibility Blog. The Federal Court Judge marilyn Hall Patel has ruled that “a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind.” […]
Pingback by David Lee King » Blog Archive » Target Being Sued for Website Inaccessibility — September 8, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Could your web site get you sued?…
A precedent setting legal case this week should make all web site owners sit up and take notice. A federal district court judge in California has allowed a suit brought by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) against Target Corp. to go forw…
Trackback by Quartz Mountain Communications — September 10, 2006 @ 1:27 am
Now, since Target.com is powered by Amazon.com, does the lawsuit actually pertain to Amazon and their lack of support for those users or is the suit against the company that decided on the back-end system to use? I’d think the technology provider should be held accountable, not their customer. Or am I missing the point here?
Comment by Brian Mark — September 12, 2006 @ 12:59 am
Even thought Amazon provides the technology to Target, Amazon itself is not a ‘brick and mortar’ business that is under the current US Accessibility Laws. Until now, most accessibility laws have been limited to physical locations and have not addressed the virtual ones. This lawsuit is attempting to bridge that gap between a physical store and its digital counterpart.
Even though Target uses the Amazon system, there are still large differences between Target.com and Amazon.com. Amazon makes extensive use of ATL attributes and is somewhat able to be understood. Target is ‘hiding’ critical information (sales, discounts, and free shipping offers)in graphic images. Target is still responsible for how it uses the system, and what it offers its consumers.
Comment by Matt Bailey — September 12, 2006 @ 10:20 am