Blind shoppers get green light to sue Target over website
I was flummoxed by this:
Target Corp., the second-largest U.S. discount store chain, lost a bid Tuesday to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the company’s website wasn’t accessible to the blind.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in San Francisco rejected Target’s request to dismiss the case. She also certified the case as a class action, ruling that all legally blind people in the U.S. who have been denied access to services at Target stores because of deficiencies in the company’s website can join the suit.
Target has failed to use “technologically simple and not economically prohibitive” code embedded in websites allowing the blind to use software that vocalizes the content, according to court filings by the National Federation of the Blind.
The group filed the suit on behalf of Bruce Sexton, a UC Berkeley student who claimed that he couldn’t access some features of Target.com. “It was just gibberish for blind users trying to use the website,” said Larry Paradis, a lawyer for the group.
“Target has argued that no law — neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor state law — could require it to make its website accessible to the blind,” Paradis said. “Today’s decision completely rejects Target’s argument.”
Can they really coerce businesses in this manner? Won’t the ultimate outcome be to discourage companies from operating websites altogether?
A few years ago, a blind litigant tried to force Southwest to revamp its website to accommodate the sight-impaired. That suit failed:
U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz said the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies only to physical spaces, such as restaurants and movie theaters, and not to the Internet.
“To expand the ADA to cover ‘virtual’ spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards,” Seitz wrote in a 12-page opinion dismissing the case. “The plain and unambiguous language of the statute and relevant regulations does not include Internet Web sites.”
As Walter Olson at the always indispensable Overlawyered points out:
Existing federal court precedent, in the Southwest Airlines case, discourages the most far-reaching demands for web “accessibility”; the Target case, which is being heard before a judge who’s considered relatively liberal, is important because disabled-rights activists hope to use it to counter and eventually reverse the Southwest precedent (see Jan. 8, 2004).
Walter’s in-depth piece on “Access Excess,” reporting on a congressional hearing on the issue in 2000, is here. It concludes:
Disabled advocates talk a lot about the Web’s need for “universality,” but what’s going on here is in fact a retreat from universality on the vital issue of who among us gets to publish. What is the frontier of the fight over free expression? Whether the Brooklyn Museum gets a subsidy next year? Or whether users of the predominant mass medium of tomorrow will retain the right to select the verbal, audio, and visual palette and syntax in which they wish to communicate with the world? Imagine the outrage if the government told visual artists that they couldn’t use low-contrast colors or eye-straining optical effects. Yet pro-ADA panelists at the hearing repeatedly emphasized their position that the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech has no bearing whatsoever on this case; the First Amendment may prohibit officials from suppressing speech based on disfavored content, but in this case the rules are just going to control everyone’s speech alike, whatever its content. Are you feeling reassured yet? Or are you ready to join me in the alarmist camp?
***
Related: Going after hybrid cars now, too.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Overlawyered
- Swanky Conservative
- Overlawyered
- Companies will stop building websites for what reason? « Cowardly political musings…
- Suing companies over inaccessible websites | The Montoya Herald
- Right Wing News
- Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Target to Continue » Constitutionally Right
- Is the Target Lawsuit Frivolous? - Accessites.org
- We Should Live - Ben Bateman » The Ever-Hungry ADA
- free cover sheets for windows vista
- “The always indispensable Overlawyered”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Patterico
» Parenting and Politics
TigerHawk
» Rank sexismGateway Pundit
» Todd Palin Speaks Out For First Time Since His Wife Became the Republican VP Candidate (Video)TigerHawk
» Deconstructing the speeches of the seasonPoliPundit.com
» Yesterday’s SampleNewsBusters.org
» 'American Morning' Fact Checks Palin But Not Obama or BidenJawa Report
» Might as Well Put it to MusicWeekly Standard
» Required Reading: I Take It All Back, Part IIDavid Frum
» Why Bother?The Sundries Shack
» Gutless Gutman
When people come forward with lawsuits like this, do they really believe they are being discriminated against?…as if to say Target said to hell with them, we don’t need their money?
We live in a very litigious society, so I am guessing not every lawsuit that comes forward will be sensical but this leaves me perplexed.
Talk about things you have to see with your own eyes (no pun intended).
Let’s just think about this for a moment. Most web experience is visual. While it’s true that there is technology to help, is it really a requirement? A little common sense, here, please. It’s not too much to ask.
Satire alert: What’s next? A deaf person suing Rush Limbaugh for not being accessible to the hearing impaired?
Just one more thing, as Peter Falk would say: Enact a loser-pays system — NOW!
Seriously.
I’m waiting for a blind man to sue Playboy or Hustler magazine for ‘equal access’….
Seriously - every Target store I’ve been to is handicap accessible.
Why is it so necessary for them to incur the expense of modifying their online experience when they have physical locations all over?
This makes about as much sense as braille writing at the ATM drive-up window.
Next thing you know folks that don’t have computers will be suing over “the denial of the internet” in their homes.
hear, hear jrl…
I wondered if an Iraqi war veteran who lost his sight in combat joins the class action suit would that cause the judge to reverse herself (she might implode if she had to rule in favor of a soldier)? But then I realized that the hypothetical wasn’t realistic because no one brave enough to serve America in war could ever be so stupid as to associate with this moron class action.
On October 3rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm, ACHefty said:
That’s not satire. Sadly, I think you can truly see into the future.
Programming a web site so that a screen reading software program can be used, like JAWS, is an accepted and standard process for reputable commercial website developers. It does take extra effort and extra expense, but so do wheelchair ramps and accessible restrooms in restaurants - can’t they eat at home is not an acceptable argument, neither is Target’s lazy programming. Can’t toe the comment board line on this one, folks - it’s the 21st century, and it isn’t that complicated or cost prohibitive to insist on reasonable accessiblity accomodations in this case.
Can the user just use Dragon Naturally Speaking to translate the website’s text into audio? Tramsmitting the airwaves through TDD shouldn’t be that difficult for Rush’s deaf listeners.
I did learn recently though of the Cerebral Palsy class action suit with the premise that it is preventable during birth according to a study.
Some web sites are designed so poorly that the only recourse one has is to leave and not return.
With all the companies selling their wares on the web, why don’t the blind just “move on” (no pun intended) to an organization that caters to their needs?
I see said the blind man! (oops, can I say that or do I have use a term like sight impaired now?)
FIrst kill all the laywers. THen ?
I wonder if the ACLU or MoveOn.org’s web sites are accessible to the blind. If not, someone should sue them right away.
I’m in favor of companies making their sites accessible, but the lawsuit smells like Deep Pocket Recognition.
Freakonomics Blog
Ahh, this is where the free market comes in to play.
- an entrepreneur spends time & money to create a better program
- Target buys the program to access the blind market
- Target gets rich, and blind people can buy the same made in China junk as the non handicapped persons.
Money always talks and works better than government
This is just silly. No company can cater to every single possible problem people in this world have or may one day have. If people are not happy with Target, go to another website. Using the internet is not a right therefore this has no merit in my opinion.
That is quite possible, Tmit.
Very poorly decided case in my opinion, and I have a hard time believing this judge’s decision won’t be overturned on appeal. Bob68, just curious…what do you do for a living?
Yes sir…and all the lawers looking to get rich in this case, as well as the San Francisco court house’s web site.
This is what I don’t get about activist judges - they don’t know their role at all.
The free market could solve this issue. If the blind would simply take their business elsewhere Target executives will feel the pain of the loss of their business. That alone would compel them to make the site accessible to the blind.
Instead, activist judges try to force the hand of the business and commie legislators pass laws requiring federal oversight of these issues. Ugh. When will our leaders understand that over-legislation and a hands on judiciary will kill a free market economy?
Probably never.
Does it shed any light on this ruling’s lunacy that this woman was appointed by Jimmy Carter? Makes sense to me now.
In Sacramento we have a big story going on because a indoor Basketball complex, the only one in the area, got sued by an ambulance chaser and ADA sue crazy person even though the business complied with all ADA laws and now closed due to the lawsuit cost.
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/406827.html
We need to seriously redo the ADA laws in this country because it is getting rediculous with these lawsuits now.
Me thinks Jimmy got one too many blows to the head by the bunny…
What if I’m color blind? Is that a disability covered under the current ADA regulations? Should Target and other online retailers be required to somehow appease me? What if I don’t know if I’m color blind…maybe I am and Target.com has been contributing to my unwitting disability? I smell a lawsuit! Weeee!
By the way, someone should check out the SF court website and see if they are “blind accessible” and if not they should go ahead and add themselves to the list of defendants.
She’s prolly not internet savy and thinks the internet is contained in a big building somewhere; therefore, it should be accessable to all.
I can see the hybrids being an issue with the blind. My husband owns a hybrid car and complains all the time that people are not responsible pedestrians around his car because it is too quiet. The dumbest thing with the car is that it has a reverse beep (like trucks) that can only be heard on the inside.
The Federal Government is required to develop webpages to what they call ‘508′ compliance. Section 508 requires access for persons with disabilities. I do not agree with excessive lawsuits such as this. I think they are another way for a lawyer to make money. However, if the Federal Government can provide this level of access (they are required by law) I see no reason for Target to not do it. It really isn’t that much more expensive to do this right, rather than cut corners to save a buck.
No they are not and you can use the following website to check them for compliance.
http://webxact.watchfire.com/
Kevin, I was sort of following along until you hit us with the “commie legislators” blast. I realize you’re in large part preaching to the choir in here, but really? C’mon dude…you can do better than that if you’re really trying to make a serious point. I don’t know about anyone else, but I immediately turn off to an argument or a point when that kind of hyperbole comes flying off of someone’s keyboard.
pressto, I’m a corporate real estate lawyer and developer, so I deal with the ADA regularly. We’ve all sort of gotten used to dealing with the regs and making sure projects are in full compliance, and by and large the basic provisions make pretty good sense. However, I’m curious as to what specifically you would suggest in the way of a “redo”.
Okay, I can see modfications for someone who is partially blind, but totally blind? what would be the guidelines for that?
@timbudd
Yes, it’s true that it’s not that much more effort to design a screen-reader compatible website, but it can substantially affect the use of Rich Internet App technologies. The issue is not “what would cost the vendor”, since that is an issue for the market, the issue is that the government has no right whatsoever to force a vendor to meet a particular need. If Target is not interested in providing a blind-accessible website, that is their perogative. They pay the yearly fee for the domain name, they paid for the designers to brand their site, they paid the programmers (or Amazon) to build their store and cart and order management tools. If they choose to walk away from a small segment of buyers, then the door is wide open for a small vendor to open a new market on the internet, and thus is competition maintained and even encouraged.
Government intervention here can only harm the consumer by either guaranteeing that only big boys bother trying to hit a non-standard ADA web target or by encouraging the majority of vendors to leave the web entirely under threat of lawsuit.
The way lawsuits are handled and allowed. Now I am from Sue Crazy California, so our cases are not the same as the rest of the Nation.
This business passed all ADA standards, but because this person could not get to the 2nd floor in private party area of the business he sued even though it was not required based on the ADA laws.
Okay done and no they don’t comply with the standards they are trying to enforce them on Target.
What you want to click on after using that website is the Accessibility section to see if they comply.
I wonder if the websites for Hillary and Obama are available to the blind? Of Judge Patel: I remember her appointment when I was practicing in California. Her appointment by he whose mother wished she’d remained a virgin? Yeah.
As a part-time website developer I need to point out a couple of things that need to be understood on this matter.
First of all … Although I can fully understand the problems of accessing websites for those with eyesight problems this type of need is normally taken care of with software the individual purchases and installs on their own computer … not by the website itself …
Secondly … to carry this a step further … to be fully compliant the software at the website end would be required to be able to translate and verbalize the text into every spoken language on the face of the earth … not just the language in which the text was written bty the website owners … fail to do that and you would face never-ending lawsuits from people that didn’t speak English or whatever the native language of the website …
We can’t even find a translator outside Washingon D.C. that speaks Vai for a trial to put away a child molestor … so how are you going to cover every spoken language … translate and then convert to speech synthesis all the text, all the ads, all the navigation buttons, etc., etc., etc.
Software for the individual … under $150.00
Software to meet all the needs from the website itself … Many $1000’s …
Anyone question why they filed this in California? …
Here we come Ninth Circus of Appeasement …
Thanks for the insight DesertLover because I think this helps clarify a lot of things.
As someone who is hearing-impaired (I’m not deaf, but it’s difficult to communicate well in public), I generally find it easier to get transcripts of Rush or whomever I want to hear that day.
My accommodation has been made, though it wasn’t primarily to suit the deaf (printing transcripts benefits lots of folks). I can’t imagine the difficulty of setting up websites to accommodate the blind.
I don’t sue places that don’t conform–my husband orders for me at drive-thrus, for example.
If Silky wasn’t tied up with the nuisance of running for prez he’d be all over this suit. The settlement would ensure a new addition on his house.
DesertLover #37 - thanks, makes sense to this novice.
bfly1133
No problem … also …
timbudd
ADA requirements to be a 508 compliant website revolve around color-blindness, other visual acuity problems, hearing problems and so forth. The requirements for each of the paragraphs (a-p) that must be met to be 508 compliant are explained at the following link:
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm
I do not recall seeing a requirement that says an entire website has to be speech synthesized by the website owner … the audio requirements they refer to are that in a multimedia presentation there must be text caption of the audio available for the hearing impaired … in fact … if there is audio only, as in music or speech only without accompanying video, it is exempt from the captioning …
If you have more information elsewhere to show me I would like to see it for future reference should I need it in creating future websites …
thanks..
With all these lawsuits going on, with everybody suing everybody (with money), I’ve got to sit down and figure out who I can sue! There has to be someone or something out there I can sue! I know…I’ll sue MM for being too nice a person, and smart too. I’ll claim I feel inferior on her website. Nah…wouldn’t work. I’d giggle too much in the courtroom and lean over too much to discuss the latest news with her.
The fall of Rome was accomplished largely by similar politically correct social miscreants.
Whereas the tools to make a website accessible are very simple, http://www.alistapart.com/ has some great articles on it.
To file a lawsuit for sites that don’t is crazy.
timbudd is right, I’m visually impaired and even screen magnification can’t help me see print, fortunately I use Freedom Scientific’s JAWS screen reader and it’s rare I have difficulty accessing a web page. I disagree with filing lawsuits not only on principle but the best way is to contact the web site and see if they would be willing to make the site accessable to a screen reader. Now if a retailer like Target doesn’t want to do so I take my business somewhere else. I find it curious that this is the same company which accomidates Muslim workers who don’t want to handle pork products wouldn’t make a few adjustments in their software to make it more accessable to the blind and visually impared. Come to think of it Target is the same company who won’t let the Salvation Army kettles outside their stores and refuse to put up Merry Christmas signs during Christmas….I’m just not motivated to shop at Target anyway.
As a cane traveler cars which don’t make any noise like a hybrid is a scary thing for someone like me who depends on my hearing when I’m crossing streets but I don’t have a solution….perhaps the driver will be so kind as to honk at me before he runs over me.
I always wondered about that!
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co. [Case No. 02-21734-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA October 18, 2002] was a District Court opinion and won’t be binding elsewhere in the federal district nor in other districts.
Southwest entered a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and Judge Seitz agreed and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE the case. That means the case could not be refiled.
I read the actual Southwest decision, and the Judge opined that the ADA does NOT cover the Internet. Obviously, the judge in the Target case sees this differently.
Usually, class actions suits like this get settled. Usually, some money changes hands (mostly going to the plaintiff’s law firm), the rest to the “plaintiffs” as a class, and the defendant admitting no wrong. Something tells me that this might not happen, because plaintiffs want Target to change their website.
kyracer
JAWS is the most widely used screen reader and is available in multiple language versions (18 or so I think) … but as I mentioned above … that is on your computer … not on the website … and the current version for XP and Vista costs around $1000.00 …
In order to be interpreted by JAWS a website has to be developed using Microsoft Active Directory as the website development coding tool … then coding statements invoking various drivers have to be called for from the website coding to allow a screen reader such as JAWS to interpret the webpages at the end-user computer browser …
The unfortunate part of that is that to create a website using Active Directory is much more complex and does not lend itself to all website types … most websites are in HTML, SHTML, XHTML for the basics and use php, java, and lots of other programming types to present their screens …
As an example … this page you are viewing on Michelle’s site is written in a combination of HTML, Javascript, Cascading Style Sheets, Forms and several other website conventions and programming methods …
I am glad you are able to have JAWS to help you enjoy your surfing experiences …
“Blind Shoppers Get Green Light…”
What green light? They’re blind!
(Yeah, I know that was probably your intent.
)
i don’t know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but most computers come with an installed narrator that reads any web page specifically for the vision impaired.
Class action =
massive fees to plaintiffs’ attorneys +
minimal relief to the class members =
plaintiff and his attorney are happy
What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A good start!
This is just another frivolous law suit to go after those with big pockets when no real harm has been done.
todd76705
You are correct … those are a part of MS Windows Accessories … they are subject to the same scripting rules for the coding of the website as the more advanced and flexible programs such as JAWS … JAWS is an acronym for Job Access With Speech … JAWS and other similar commercial programs are much more advanced
Hi folks, long-time reader but first-time poster (hi Michelle!)
As a full-time web software developer I think I have to take issue with some of the comments about screenreaders here. Strictly speaking all a screenreader needs to read a website is for the site to be compliant with w3.org specs for HTML 4.1 transition or XHTML 1.0, along with the various doodads offered by CSS 2.1/3.0. Good screenreader software doesn’t need any proprietary addons and statements in the site code in order to function, as a well-written and well developed website will be easily machine-readable without having to hack away at it and make special cases. Such tags will actually make the site less copmpliant with the spec and consequently will reduce its accessibility in the long and even medium term. Well written websites will gracefully degrade to a screen-readable format which, incidentally, will also boost the page ranking on google and other search engines because of the afformentioned machine-readable nature of a well-crafted website. It’s in a company’s interest to genrate a website that sticks to the specs as much as possible because it will make their site that much easier for search engines to correctly rank and it makes the entire site easier to maintain. It will also improve accessibility for disabled people, but that’s a by-product rather than a goal.
mm.com is a good example of this. I just turned off the stylesheet in firefox and it degraded wonderfully, with the most important elements right at the top of the page and less important elements further down.
Here in the UK, of course, I have to be compliant with a bunch of regulations on accessibility. They’re telling me to do things I’ve been doing as a matter of course for a long time already, though, because the specs for all these technologies are designed with broad accessibility in mind and any well designed website will be highly accessible in a similar situation. I’ve just had a look at target’s website and it does appear to be largely compliant with the specs and recommendations. I would have got rid of the table in the middle and I’d probably put the main content right at the top, since that’s the sales pitch, but other than that it seems fine.
So really I don’t really know what this lawsuit is based on apart from over-tight regulations that go well beyond the scope of what’s even possible with current technology… which I suppose is the real issue.
The solution is simple, of course, and doesn’t involve a single bit of legislation or a single trip to the courts. If these people don’t want to use a screenreader then they should use firefox and turn off the stylesheet. Problem solved.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE2D91438F93AA1575BC0A960948260
A Federal District judge ruled today that the Library of Congress violated the First Ammendment rights of blind people by eliminating Braille editions of Playboy magazine.
The Library of Congress ceased production of Braille editions of Playboy last December, after Congress withheld $103,000 in library funds, the exact amount it costs to print 1,000 copies of the magazine for the blind.
The Braille edition of the magazine, which comes in four volumes, contains no pictures or advertisements.
The Americans With Disabilities Act has led to some strange applications by business trying to avoid a lawsuit. For instance, did you know that new Baby Changing Stations in publicly-accessible bathrooms need to have instructions stamped in braille? Personally, I think if a blind person can get him or herself and a baby to a public place and already be equipped to change a diaper, then they don’t need instructions!
There are some important points about the Target lawsuit:
1. Blind people were blocked from accessing online-only coupons and sale items, and these discounts were not available at their local stores.
2. Target was notified of the problems, and given suggestions on how to fix them. Many of the problems were simply based on lack of alt attributes in images and image maps.
3. Target ignored these suggestions and 6 months later, the lawsuit was filed.
There are many sites that are not fully accessible. We would probably be safe in stating 95% of the sites are not “fully accessible”. However, the law requires some effort to making your site accessible and if you are providing a service exclusively online, you are responsible to make that available to everyone.
It is surprising that Target allowed itself to get in this position. They are a company with a strong visual brand and design ethos. They should have taken this more seriously. Perhaps they will grow from this experience and develop a much better site that is an example of great design with great accessibility built in.
timbudd #34, thanks for your subject matter input:
It seems to me both Target and the National Federation of the Blind could benefit working this problem and sharing the results internet wide. At the same time they might teach webmaster not all users have high speed DSL or Cable access and audio/visual clips are a waste of time on us.
On the bigger picture, if this does go through, Target loses and has to pay…won’t this potentially open it up for any blind person anywhere to sue anyone who has a web site that they are unable to hear? The broader impact of this decision is just staggering…if that is what could happen. More P.C. run amock.
Not a single point is covered by ADA and NOTHING in the ADA laws states companies are required to do 100% the same for people with disabilities to those that do have them. NOTHING in ADA covers the web. IF they pass a new law fine, but until that time Target did nothing wrong and the judge should have thrown the lawsuit out.
What is next, wheelchair ramps or Lifts up to the top of Half Dome?
I do believe those wishing to climb Half Dome would prefer to use adaptive equipment and not a lift.
Welcome to America where you can have it YOUR way. /sarcasm