Blind shoppers can pursue class action

Blind shoppers can pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act class action against Target based on the inaccessibility of its website, a U.S. District Court judge in California recently ruled in National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. (No. 06-1802).
A national organization of blind individuals filed suit against Target, alleging its website violated state law as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act because it was inaccessible to the blind.
The plaintiffs argued that designing an accessible website was technologically simple, using “alternative text” – invisible code embedded beneath graphics that can be read by blind users’ software. Without these features, the plaintiffs contended they were denied full and equal access to the defendant’s stores in violation of the ADA.
Target moved to dismiss, arguing that the ADA covered access to physical spaces only, but the court disagreed.
The court also certified a national class of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Target.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores, as well as a sub-class of California plaintiffs seeking redress under state law.
“The declarations present two types of alleged access problems: diverted purchases and in-store barriers,” according to the opinion. “Some of the putative class members were deterred from going to Target stores after their experiences with the website. A second set of [class members] describe the increased time and expense incurred during in-store shopping as a result of the inaccessibility of the website. Their inability to pre-shop on the website required [class members] to hire an aide or ask a friend or family member to accompany them. Guided shopping trips took longer as a result of the inability to review products online in advance.
“A wheelchair user is not prohibited from entering a store without a ramp: that person could be carried into the store by the store personnel or hire a guide to do so. Nevertheless, those accessibility barriers, even where they may be accommodated, would generally violate the ADA. Similarly, the increased cost and time to surmount the alleged barriers presented by the inability to pre-shop demonstrate that the [plaintiffs] have met the class definition,” the court said.