Court rules against Target on website accessibility lawsuit

target Court rules against Target on website accessibility lawsuitA federal district court judge issued two landmark decisions today in a nationwide class action against Target Corporation. First, the court certified the case as a class action on behalf of blind Internet users throughout the country under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Second, the court held that web sites such as are required by California law to be accessible.

The ruling was issued in a case brought by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). The suit charges that Target failed and refused to make accessible to the blind and, therefore, violated the ADA as well as two California civil rights statutes: the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide class under the ADA for injunctive relief. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a California subclass for both injunctive relief and statutory minimum damages. The court denied Target’s motion for summary judgment.

The court certified, as counsel for the class, the following law firms: Disability Rights Advocates; Brown, Goldstein & Levy; Schneider & Wallace; and Peter Blanck, chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute and university professor at Syracuse University.

Comment with Your Facebook Account


  1. SingleMalt says:

    What crap this is. There are certain things you can’t DO because you’re blind, navigate teh entire internet is one of them. Newsflash everyone IS NOT EQUAL, SOME PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT ABILITIES!

    Jesus, what’s next, suing Chevy for non-blind accessable cars?

  2. Mark Neigh says:

    This is the reason designing with Web standards is so incredibly important. We’re not far away from a legal mandate that all company sites must be designed for accessibility. There are indeed great technologies available to make the Web available to those with different abilities and there is no better way to say that your brand cares than to design your sites with that in mind.

  3. Navigating the “entire internet” is possible with scriptreading software, one of which is called “Jaws.” Singlemalt might wanna lay off the liquor before inserting foot. Besides, the laws only give “equal access,” not exclusive or superior access. And even primates cannot get termites out of hills to eat with their bare appendages, they use “tools” like sticks and twigs to dig them out. SO sometimes individuals just need assistance which can take many different forms. But nobody likes a TOOL.

  4. I sense that the court has taken the appropriate steps in this direction.

  5. What?! When do I get to sue Target for having a website that downlaods slowly on a 56k connection?
    I think this case is total BS

  6. You can think it is total BS but the truth is the U.S. is way behind the rest of the world on this. Changing their (Target’s) site is NOT that difficult. Any good designer today understands accessibility. For those who think this is total BS I hope you never go blind and try navigate the web in the U.S.

  7. rascalpants says:

    for those of you who think that this lawsuit is “BS” or “Crap” are very short sighted… there were people who fought against wheelchair accessiblity in public places as well… Civil Rights apply to everyone… not just the ones with 20/20 vision and show can run the 40 in less than 5 seconds. Plus, as a business person, one would think that there is a demographic out there that would be more than willing to shop at your 508 compliant web site, so they dont have to roll their blind arses down to the closest Target store. :)

  8. There is very little point to arguing with the law. Whether or not you like the rules isn’t important. The fact is, laws are put in place to protect and help those who need the law on their side, in this case, it is the blind. And while this law may not be as important or needed as others, you can’t argue how it does help the blind and disabled.


  1. [...] 901am: Court rules against Target on website accessibility lawsuit [...]

  2. [...] Kalifornien ist nun ein privates Unternehmen verurteilt worden, weil seine Web site nicht den gesetzlichen Accessibility (oder auf Deutsch [...]

  3. [...] I care second because I have a legal obligation to develop web sites which comply with WCAG 1.0, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Anti Discrimination Act 1998. I am also aware there is a movement toward regulating accessibility (for example section 508 in the United States) and similar laws through Europe. Look at Bruce McGuire versus SOCOG in Australia and recently Target overseas. [...]

  4. [...] National Federation of the Blind (NFB) recently won their nationwide class action suit against Target for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) which guarantees full and [...]

  5. [...] found an interesting news article on the IxDA list today concerning an accessibility lawsuit brought against Target by the National Federation of the Blind. One of the findings of the federal district court was that [...]

Speak Your Mind