Federal judge sustains discrimination claims against Target; precedent establishes that retailers must make their websites accessible to the blind under the ADA

A federal district court judge ruled yesterday that a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind. The ruling was issued in a case brought by the National Federation of the Blind against Target Corp. (Northern District of California Case No. C 06-01802 MHP) The suit charges that Target’s website (Target) is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. Target asked the court to dismiss the action by arguing that no law requires Target to make its website accessible. The Court denied Target’s motion to dismiss and held that the federal and state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as target.com.

source – NFB Press Release – Legal Precedent Set for Web Accessibility.

You’d have to have your head in the sand not to realize the implications of this news. Inaccessible web sites are clearly a form of discrimination. Don’t make yourself a target for the next accessibility lawsuit.

That’s good to know. And I’m sure that the guidelines will be beneficial overall. I think it’s a (potential) victory for Target shoppers; I don’t like how it leaves everything else unresolved. (There are some decision-makers who really will only pay attention when the law is clear.)

NFB argues for blind access using “screen access software”. That is their cause. Of course it is their cause! Elaine, screen readers can drive text-to-speech or Braille devices. “Screen access software” includes Braille.

The agreement specifies that Target will comply with their internal guidelines (TOATG) available at the DRA Site, http://dralegal.org. These guidelines are consistent with WCAG Priority 1and Section 508; they include keyboard access and good advice on Ajax.

People whine, “another set of guidelines.” I helped develop IBM’s accessibility guidelines starting around 1998. They have evolved but are are still available, http://ibm.com/able/guidelines.The idea that a corporation wants their own version written in their style with examples from their site is commendable.

Thanks again, Glenda.

Also, I can’t imagine Jim would let them slide by without at least informing them of issues for non-blind users, even if legally he couldn’t give them a failing grade (see http://www.jimthatcher.com/whatnot.htm – his “What not to do” on web accessibility/usability). If Target opened themselves up for a similar lawsuit after settling this one, it would make them look VERY bad in all sorts of ways. People would know to cite this ruling, and it would very much appear that Target knowingly and willfully denied access to a set of users.

“blind guests using screen-reader software“

Not blind people using Braille machines, not low-vision people using screen magnifiers, not any other disabled people. Just blind people, just using screen-readers. Any other accessibility improvements are thus a side-effect, not an intention. I’m happy, of course, that they’re going to do even that much, but it is in NO way an unequivocal victory for web accessibility.

And I know this is faster, but professionally a clear-cut court decision would’ve been preferable. This whole is-it-or-isn’t-it-ADA thing has been dragging on for too damn long already.