Ragged Edge Online Home

CA Blind Sue Target Stores Over Inaccessible Website

Blind people in California today sued Target, the national discount department store, in a class action suit, saying its website is inaccessible to blind people. The retail giant's online store, which according to its home page is "powered by Amazon.com," "contains significant access barriers that prevent blind customers from browsing and purchasing products online, as well as from finding important corporate information such as employment opportunities, investor news, and company policies," says the National Federation of the Blind, which, along with NFB's California chapter, is a plaintiff in the suit.

"Blind customers should have the same access to Target's online services that Target offers its sighted customers," says NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer. Target.com, say plaintiffs, "fails to meet the minimum standard of web accessibility. It lacks compliant alt-text, an invisible code embedded beneath graphic images that allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of the image to a blind computer user. It also contains inaccessible image maps, preventing blind users from jumping to different destinations within the website. And because the website requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, blind Target customers are unable to make purchases on Target.com independently."

"We tried to convince Target that it should make its website accessible through negotiations," Maurer said. "It's unfortunate that Target was unwilling to commit to equal access for all its online customers. That gave us no choice but to seek the protection of the court. The website is no more accessible today than it was in May of last year, when we first complained to Target."

Although federal cases brought against inaccessible websites under the Americans with Disabilities Act have not fared well in the courts, today's suit is filed under California law. Mazen M. Basrawi with Disability Rights Advocates, one of the groups serving as attorneys to the plaintiffs, says Target's inaccessible site violates state antidiscrimination law. "Target is a retail outlet, a public place, with a public website. The retail outlet is a store, and the website is a service provided by and integrated with the brick-and-mortar stores," says Basrawi. "Target.com is a 'public place' within the meaning of California Civil Code because it is open to the public, and because the laws apply to all services related to Target stores, including the website."

"I want to be able to shop online at Target.com just like anyone else," says UC Berkeley student BJ Sexton, one of the plaintiffs. "Millions of blind people like me can use the internet just as easily as do the sighted, if the website is accessible."

The suit asks the court to declare that Target is operating its website in a manner that discriminates against the blind and persons with visual disabilities in violation of California law, and seeks damages for the plaintiffs.

Read press release from Disability Rights Advocates website.

Read complaint -- PDF file (via Inclusion Daily).


The NFB uses such lawsuits not to ensure accessibility but to shake down major corportions for big ticket donations.


Re: Cisco Houston's comment (above): So if they are doing it for the money, but WHAT they are doing is a good thing (suing for access), are you saying they should not sue, or that this lawsuit is a bad idea?


How many websites are accessible to blind people? 10%? 50%? How many software programs are there that read websites? Have they been tested on the Target site? Just wondering.


In answer to Dominick's questions, above -- here at Ragged Edge we've heard that fewer than 10 percent of commercial websites are fully accessible to blind users. The biggest offenders are sites with shopping-cart pages. For more background, you might try looking at the information at the Trace Center website at http://trace.wisc.edu/world/web/index.html . There's also information at the Blindness Resource Center website at http://www.nyise.org/access.htm


All, please take a look at this website that details the Maguire vs. SOCOG suit.
(Bruce Maguire vs. Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games)


The last paragraph in this website states: In any event, in the Maguire case we now have a firm worldwide precedent that inaccessible Web sites can be and are illegal.

And no kidding...the Deaf are currently doing something about uncaptioned Internet web news sites. Keep watch...

Post comment

(All entries are checked for inappropriate content before they appear on the site. Thanks for waiting.)

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Email this page to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):