Target.com sued because its site is inaccessible to the blind

Published on February 8th, 2006

Wall Street Journal Law Blog – February 7, 2006 via the always entertaining Overlawyered.com:

According to a press release issued by the plaintiffs, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) filed a lawsuit today in California state court against discount retailer Target Corp. The suit charges that Target’s Web site is inaccessible to the blind, violating California civil rights and disability law.

A similar suit was previously brought against Southwest Airlines, but the judge determined the Americans with Disabilities Act applied only to physical spaces, such as restaurants and movie theaters, and not to the internet.

And, as far as I know, Matt Murdock will not be trying the case, but it’d be damn cool if he did.

Update: Speaking of Southwest Airlines and asinine lawsuits, an African-American is suing that airline for forcing her to buy two tickets due to her enormous weight. Strangely the lawsuit alleges race discrimination, not weight discrimination.

Update to the update: “A jury on Friday said Southwest Airlines did not racially discriminate against an overweight passenger when she was asked to buy a second seat on her flight.”

18 users responded in " Target.com sued because its site is inaccessible to the blind "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 gquaglia said, on February 8th, 2006 at 9:31 am

Another example of the declining US civil law system. Large companies once again have to fend off stupid and ridiculous lawsuits. This cost money, wastes time and forces them to raise prices. Worst of all, some loony jury or judge will award damages, or more likely Target will just settle, so that they can get on with business. This will cause others to sue for other ridiculous things ans so on an so on. I guess this is why drive up ATMs have brail on their buttons or Winabego is forced to state in its owners manual that the vehicle will not drive itself with the cruise control on because some moron turned on the cruise control, got out of his seat and walk in the back thinking that it would.

# 2 Lite said, on February 8th, 2006 at 9:39 am

#1 your comments are very short-sighted.

As someone who develops Section 508 (disability compliant) web sites, I have to ask whether the issue was presented to Target before this lawsuit was filed.

While the ADa might not apply fully, if Target is receiving ANY federal money, then they better be compliant.

Definitely a tricky one, but I am willing to expect an out of court settlement.

# 3 Ivor Biggun said, on February 8th, 2006 at 9:51 am

I want to know why:
…blind people aren’t allowed to drive?
…there are no hearing impaired grammy judges.
…radio stations don’t hire autistics for on-air jobs.
…I’m being so politically incorrect?

# 4 Rob S said, on February 8th, 2006 at 11:05 am

Drive thru ATMs have braile stickers because blind people often have whoever is driving them, even a cabby, swing through to get cash. It costs banks about $20 to put these stickers on $15-20K for the machines themselves.

Accessibility for the blind is such an easy thing to do with technology is such an easy thing to do compared to the things corporate IT groups take on. Yes, there will always be people who sue for getting their coffee to hot, but that’s really a different issue than laws that allow more folks to be independent and contributing members of society.

I have worked with a couple of the big litigators on this issue, and it’s no secret when they are filing papers, and against which companies. I just left a company that has been on the lawsuit radar for several years, and despite being told, “you are next”, have not done anything about ADA/508. I hope they get many, many days of bad press over this.

# 5 Don said, on February 8th, 2006 at 11:18 am

No autistic radio personalities? Then the guy I listen must just be an idiot.

# 6 Jeff said, on February 8th, 2006 at 11:24 am

Some of you are missing the point… there are no laws that dictate accessibility for Web sites. Frankly, I don’t think there should be. It would be no different than forcing a magazine or newspaper publisher to print Braille editions.

I’m not trying to be apathetic to blind people here, but there are certain physical constraints for certain activities, and you can’t accommodate everyone every time. We’ve been over this in the amusement industry, where the best you can do is make rides that can safely hold 99% of riders, but getting to 100% reduces safety or eliminates the product entirely.

# 7 Paul said, on February 8th, 2006 at 11:34 am

“I want to know why:
…there are no hearing impaired grammy judges.”

Have you HEARD any of the grammy winners from the past few years? It’s obvious that ALL of the judges are hearing impaired.

# 8 Mike said, on February 8th, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Well, this case looks to be dealing with California state law — but the ADA (like other federal anti-discrimination laws) steps far beyond regulating interstate commerce, and actually forces people to engage in commerce where they might otherwise not wish to. Not to mention the fact that most commerce is intra-state anyway, and shouldn’t be subject to federal regulation.

# 9 Milo said, on February 8th, 2006 at 4:55 pm

Gquaglia I have one thing to say to you

# 10 Awake said, on February 8th, 2006 at 5:08 pm

Now I’m scared. I’m a pro-photographer and now I have to worry that I will be sued because my photos are not accessible to the blind.
When I mentioned this lawsuit to my mother, which has been legally blind all her life, she laughed and said… gee.. maybe I should sue because they don’t install automatic stuff in the road so I can drive a car.

# 11 Pat said, on February 8th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

gquaglia

I take it that neither you nor anyone you know ever needs assistance. You see, it is all those little things that make life impossible for many handicapped. Be it something like ramps on street corners so wheel chairs AND baby strollers might navigate safely, allowing guide dogs into restaurants so blind people may live more independently, and visual signals so the deaf are in less danger.

I don’t know which laws require handicap access or accessibility . Good public relations should be a driving force behind making more places accessible. If there is a law that requires Target.com to be accessible to the handicap, then would behooves me why they wouldn’t follow it.

Now, honestly can you tell me about any lawsuit that was frivolous that went to a jury? If any lawsuit is frivolous, the judge has the power to not only dismiss it, but award all reasonable costs to the defendant. Most courtrooms are too busy so the judge will toss out frivolous suits. I would suggest you check out the Stella Awards before answering about a frivolous jury award. The truth about the Stella awards and other legal myths can be found at Snopes.com.

http://snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

# 12 gquaglia said, on February 8th, 2006 at 7:00 pm

#11 I’m all for access for the handicaped, my point was to point out the absurdity of above mentioned lawsuit. My brail comment was ment to point out why a ATM for drive up use would need it. The blind don’t drive. And the Winabego was to point out a truly ridicious lawsuit. And yes people sue for everything. Many are just setteled to get them over with, the cost is just passed on to their customers.

# 13 Pat said, on February 8th, 2006 at 7:37 pm

gquaglia

I haven’t read the Winnibago manual, however the incident you mention, about the cruise control, is a myth. It never happened. Check out snopes.com. Good story, but a myth.

Also there are ATMs all over, not just in drive-troughs Most of the ones I’ve seen have the braille embossed into the buttons, not stuck on. Because the same machines are used indoors as well as at drive-troughs, it would make sense to use the same buttons. Besides, what is to stop a sight handicapped person from walking up to the machine after the bank is closed. I’ve never seen any drive through that said “No Blind Pedestrians”. I realize I am being a little ridiculous with that point, but there is the possibility it might be used by someone not driving.

As for the idea that there are so many “frivolous” law suits out there is a bogus statement. Yes, some do happen, but they are almost always thrown out by the judge. It is extremely rare that frivolous suits go to trial. To initiate the suit, the Plaintiff must offer some kind of proof that the incident happened, the defendant is responsible, and that they were actually injured. If you can’t show those three things your suit is thrown out.

What the Manufactures Association, medical insurers, and others do is keep suggesting that these suits are frivolous when they don’t exist. They want to change the rules to make it harder to be compensated by someone else’s mistakes. They don’t want to make manufacturers be more responsible for their products, or bad physicians stopped from practicing. They just don’t want you to have a fair hearing in front of an independent tribunal.

Do you remember Regan’s famous example of the guy who put a step ladder in cow manure and when it tipped over he sued? Well, that was an invented story, it just never happened yet here the President repeated that story several times including on TV. It wasn’t the high rewards that drove up the medical malpractice insurance, it is the bad Doctors performing bad surgeries and medicine that injured people that drove up the insurance.

# 14 gquaglia said, on February 8th, 2006 at 11:53 pm

Your right it was a good story. I usually check that site. must have missed that one.

# 15 Laura said, on February 9th, 2006 at 5:04 am

As someone who creates web pages and is on the verge of being legally blind I like to think I am sensative to the needs of blind and low vision people.

I agree that a lawsuit is an inappropriate way to deal with the problem. I am sure Target had no intention of disenfranchising potental consumers. Contacting Target and explaining the problem would have likely have resulted in Target changing their website to accomidate bland and low vision people.

In web design classes I almost always bring up the needs of blind and low vision people. Most web design classes teach how to make pages look cool without any thought to low vision and blind visitors.

The geowing use of Flash often makes pages totoally useless to blind and low vision users.

I am a consultant who works with many elderly people and I have found many websites that are very hard for anyone wihtout good vision to read.

Web designers need to consider this part of their audience when creating web pages and the people who pay to have web pages created for them need to realize that either they should forgo flash and hard to read designs and color combinations, or that they should create a paralel website for low vision and blind users.

Basicly, don’t use miniscule fonts, use high contrast between the text and backgroun colors and use Flash sparingly (not for menus if it can be avoided).

# 16 Pat said, on February 9th, 2006 at 6:25 am

Laura

Very good points and I agree fully. As I get a little older and now wear reading glasses, I too find many web pages very hard to read. I usually move on if I am able. I assume your eyes are worse then mine and the problem more acute.

In post #13, I accidentally spelled “drive through” as “drive TROUGH”. Considering the fees banks charge to access your own money, maybe that could be an appropriate moniker.

# 17 Isofarro said, on February 10th, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Ivor Biggun: “I want to know why: …blind people aren’t allowed to drive?”

Because they have a reputation for speeding. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/458257.stm

Your list seems to suggest blind people can’t use computers – which is quite incorrect. Assistive technologies are available to take text content from a web page and read it out loud – keyboards are a powerful and capable input device. I wouldn’t be surprised if blind people were using the World Wide Web well before you hopped on.

I don’t see the danger to society by allowing – or encouraging – blind people to use the web. Certainly seems like a safer and easier place to buy goods than trying to get to the shops and back. Why deny them that option?

We do live in the twenty first century, you know.

Jeff: “there are no laws that dictate accessibility for Web sites. Frankly, I don’t think there should be. It would be no different than forcing a magazine or newspaper publisher to print Braille editions.”

No surprise that you are utterly wrong. The web is not a limited medium like paper. Paper is a limited visual medium – the web isn’t limited to visual perception. A piece of text on a computer can be displayed on a screen, read out loud, or rendered on a refreshable braille display – seeable, hearable and touchable. Show me one print magazine or one print newspaper that has that flexibility and that power.

The web has accessibility built in as a feature. Its up to web developers and web designers to use the medium properly. It is a great pity that most web designers out there are still using 1997-based techniques, rather than modern 2005 techniques. Every year they fall further and further behind.

gquaglia: “My brail comment was ment to point out why a ATM for drive up use would need it. The blind don’t drive.”

I take it you’ve never seen a blind person using a drive-through ATM from the back seat of a taxi. Or even considered the possibility.

Awake: “I’m a pro-photographer and now I have to worry that I will be sued because my photos are not accessible to the blind.”

Aren’t you confident enough of your profession to explain that your medium is inherently a limited visual one? The web isn’t limited in that way – I know its difficult for visually-orientated people to understand this. To you, a website is a visual experience, to others its an aural experience, much like an audiobook or telephone conversation, but with hyperlinks.

# 18 James said, on February 13th, 2006 at 1:47 am

Laura: The NFB did contact Target 10 months ago to explain them the problem. What did they do? NOTHING. Do they care for their potential customers? I think the answer is they don’t, now they should care about a lawsuit.

gquaglia, Jeff, Ivor Biggun and others: Too many people think that the world wide web is just a magazine for computers. It is not, it’s much richer than newspapers and magazines. Do you know that there are web content accessibility guidelines since 1999? 7 years is a long time in real world, nothing to say in the Internet.

People who suffer disabilities have the same right as you to surf the net, to find information online, to buy products online, to do whatever they want to on the internet. Making a website accessible is much easier than you would think, the problem is web designers/developers don’t bother, it’s just lazyness.

You say it’s useless to make websites accessible, I have one question for you: Instead of being inaccessible for the blind or disabled, would you think the same if their homepage said “Access denied for women, non-caucasian, elderly people…”? Would you think the same?

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!