Is the Target Lawsuit Frivolous?

Posted October 7th, 2007 by Mike Cherim

Many businesses… are notorious for putting fiscal concerns ahead of matters of compassion and social responsibility…

Last week all hell broke loose. For web accessibility there was a triumph of sorts. And in the world of web-is-money-first a small blow that is feared to mushroom into a costly problem. Some Internet merchants may feel they have better things to do than to acknowledge and cater to the needs of a “small” user group like the disabled — specifically the blind in the Target case (to learn more, links are provided later in this entry). Some people feel this lawsuit is frivolous and that private businesses should be left to decide on their own whether or not they accommodate these small user groups. Others, meanwhile, think the lawsuit is a good move and quite necessary.

Okay, I’m pretty sure what I’ve written so far is fact. Now I will offer my opinion. My take of the situation. My answer to the question of whether or not the suit is frivolous. I didn’t even run this article past my teammates (so watch for typoz), though I do hope they’ll respond here with their opinions. Just as I hope you will, too, dear reader.

So, is it Frivolous?

The short answer: Hell No! (Can I put double strong tags around that?) Many businesses, as I wrote in response to a thread on the Web Standards Group (WSG) mailing list where the issue ended up being hotly debated last week, are notorious for putting fiscal concerns ahead of matters of compassion and social responsibility, and that often they act only when forced to — or when their lawyers shake their heads after calculating an unfavorable risk assessment. The “force” can come from two sources: the public in the form of bad press or via consumer boycott; or as a result of the judicial system acting on behalf of government, organizations, or individuals.

As it concerns web accessibility, I feel that any private or publicly-held business that provides content on the web should be mandated to conform to published standards by law. And if they don’t, within a reasonable time frame after identifying their web site’s weaknesses, then they should be held accountable and required to pay significant penalties. Moreover, businesses should be proactive in identifying their sites’ flaws and correcting them. Hard line stand? Yes. Necessary? Again, yes!

As a business owner with a web enterprise myself, I might be put off or up in arms by my last remark, but being that I know about web accessibility, I realize it’s not that big of a deal to conform. In my opinion an accessible web site will arguably cost only slightly more — for the extra attention to detail and alternatives where required — but it’s not a huge sum.

Also, think of this: Target, as a prime example, has many outlets throughout the United States. All of these outlets conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for physical locations of commerce. You know, stuff like ramps, wider doors, restroom accommodations, and parking spots. As you can image, all this physical conformity must have cost and arm and a leg. Yet, Target has one web site. Would it cost millions, hundreds, or even tens of thousands to make it accessible? Very unlikely. Could it add $10,000 to the price of a new site of that scope? Sure, maybe? But you see my point, right? It’s likely millions were spent on nationwide physical conformance, yet spending a fraction of that to make their site accessible to their disabled visitors was too much trouble. Even after they were made aware of the problem, the solutions handed to them, and given a generous amount of time to make good, they couldn’t be bothered. It’s not, after all, like this lawsuit suddenly came from the sky like a bolt of lightning.

Making a business site, or any site, accessible makes good sense. We’ve made a business case for web accessibility before. I doubt the management at Target is stupid, so why didn’t they make their site accessible to blind users when asked? Why waste everyone’s time and money, and embarrass themselves in the process? Why put off the inevitable? I hypothesize that the answer is as simple as that they weren’t made to, and they could save a few thousand dollars by not worrying about it until they absolutely had to.

Businesses should demonstrate a little compassion to those in need. I’m not disabled, but I had a family member who was severely so, and to her the web was a miracle. Going out was a hassle. Too much equipment, too much time and bother. But on the Internet, with a web browser and a stick in her mouth, she was free to roam and giddy with delight. In my opinion businesses really shouldn’t have to be told to make this possible for her or any less fortunate visitor. This is something they should have the foresight and compassion to do all by themselves.

Want to learn more about this class-action lawsuit? To get the nuts and bolts these resources should help.

So, is the Target lawsuit frivolous? Again, I say hell no, but what’s your opinion?


26 Responses to: “Is the Target Lawsuit Frivolous?”

  1. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 10:10 am

    OK, here goes. I am prepared to get hammered. Let me have it. I can take it.

    I try to learn everything there is to learn (although I am a slow learner) about standards compliant website design and accessible website design. That’s one of the main reasons I read this great blog. I think responsible web designers should make accessible websites, because not only is it the smart thing to do, it’s the right thing to do.

    The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution. Ludwig von Mises

    With that being said, I don’t think it’s the government’s place to mandate what I design. In fact, I think its none of the government’s business. I know this flies in the face of current discrimination laws that have nothing to do with the web, but I don’t think the government needs to mind the business of private property owners.

    I have always looked up to the official state slogan of the state of New Hampshire (USA): “Live Free or Die”. I think the government needs to stop trampling on the rights of private property owners, and that includes the right to design a flawed website.

    OK, let me have it!

  2. Bob Easton responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Frivolous? No way! It’s very serious.

    I am not a lawyer, and won’t play one on TV, but I see this case as one which intends to stretch the U.S. ADA well into territory the ADA did not originally consider. Sometime ago, a similar suit was brought against Southwest Airlines. It did not go to trial because a judge ruled (rightly, I think) that the Web was not a place of accommodation under the ADA. That ruling isn’t quite enough to be considered “settled law.” A jury tried case that came to the same conclusion would be settled law.

    So, now we have a plaintiff and an advocacy organization trying once again to stretch a law that is in the same neighborhood, but doesn’t quite fit. This time they have a more sympathetic judge who seems more willing to stretch, or contort, existing law.

    Right on schedule, from stage left appears a bunch of Chicken Littles proclaiming the end of the Web or Business as we know it. My day job is accessibility consulting within a large corporation. When the situation arises where one of our internal units wants to publish something on our external web sites that doesn’t meet our (more rigorous than 508) standards, we have an exception process that weighs risk and ensures remediation actually happens. The normal approval process uses high level business managers to approve the requests. Thursday, the day after the most recent Target rulings, I got a call from LAWYERS for one of the internal units, not the usual managers. The lawyers were essentially “newbies” to accessibility, but almost certain we had extreme risk to consider in light of the Target rulings. In other words, they did not understand the technology, the details of the Target case, the ADA, other similar cases (NY, Spitzer, etc.), and especially the details of our own material that was thought to need this exception processing. It turns out there were no actual problems, false alarms all around, but a costly fire drill due to a Chicken Little scenario.

    Like so many cautious lawyers, these lawyers were treating bench rulings of a case in progress as settled law. Yes, it is an interesting test of the U.S. ADA, but let’s wait until it is settled before we set off telling business they should be “mandated to conform.”

    I would much rather see this case fail and ensure that the U.S. ADA is not the right basis. That would lead to creating a new law that is actually specific and appropriate, a much better solution than stretching the ADA. In other words, make law from the legislature, not the bench!

    It’s not that I disagree in any way with making web sites as accessible as possible. That’s my current life, and I’m doing it because I think it’s the right thing to do, not because it is mandated by some law. The question is not of whether the changes should be made, but under what motivation. YES, the changes should be made.

    But, NO they should not be forced upon private enterprise by law that has been proven as ineffective as the U.S. ADA. That law intended to improve the lives of People with Disabilities (PwD). Well, it has made some gains in the retail spaces Mike describes above, but beyond those improvements and some general raising of awareness, the law has been an abject failure. Instead of opening the employment doors for PwD, many fewer are employed today than before the law was passed. The law was so poorly crafted than dozens of suits have been settled in favor of employers, not the disabled plaintiffs. The effect has been chilling. Employers that once might have employed the disabled now see these suits, and their costs, as a liability they will avoid. Before we ask that the ADA be extended to the Web, read Greg Perry’s “Disabling America” to learn how this supposedly compassionate legislation has had a devastating effect. Let’s not extend ADA. It is a spectacular failure. Leave it alone. Stay away form it. If you want to advocate for a legal mandate, advocate for something better than the ADA.

    The firm I work for is very large, does business in every country in the world, has employees, nearly 400,000 in almost every country in the world. We have had an incredibly long and strong commitment to People with Disabilities, hiring many of them 70 years before any form of legislation appeared in any of those countries. That commitment is driven by both compassion and the understanding that People with Disabilities bring real value to our business. Yes, it’s an internal value that is not pervasive in private enterprise, but is stronger and more valuable than any legal mandate.

  3. Joe Dolson responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Well, I think I’ve already had this discussion with David…so, if you don’t mind, I’m just going to skip over your comments to add my own! That is, whatever additional has come to mind in reading your article.

    First, I think the fear of cost is, in fact, justified. The problem is twofold: the first is training. Very few people have a full and thorough understanding of web accessibility. This means that for the mass of company websites to conform they need to either a) hire one of the few qualified web developers, b) hire one of an even smaller group of qualified trainers in web accessibility, or c) wing it and hope for the best.

    Any of these three options will carry significant cost.

    The second aspect of the problem is the actual workload. Yes, it’s only a minor increase in new development to properly build in accessibility. However, these companies already have web sites. And we all know that RE-developing a web site is a significant undertaking. Whether they need to retrofit their existing sites or build new ones, the cost is in no way trivial.

    The lawsuit is certainly not frivolous, of course. The lawsuit is a plea for fair accommodations: and that’s entirely reasonable and should be expected. It’s not fundamentally different from physical disability accommodations, which have been required for a long time.

    If web accessibility requirements were handled in the same way as physical requirements, it may work. (Although it would require some very careful legal authorship.) With physical spaces, an existing inaccessible space is only required to become accessible if other work on the space is being done. If you are remodeling; the space MUST be accessible when completed. (Work accommodations are different, however.)

    With the web, this could be hard to judge; one would have to determine what is a qualified “remodel” of the website. Sites are being edited constantly, after all — this is probably equivalent in a physical space to moving the furniture…

  4. Steve Green responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    I’m all for keeping Government out of things that don’t concern them but I believe this is an area where they should intervene because it’s all about the kind of society we want to live in. Does ‘freedom’ really mean ‘freedom to discriminate against other people’? Some people would say it does, but thankfully that is the kind of thinking we have largely left behind during the last century.

    Many web developers and the companies they serve seem to think there’s something sacrosanct about the websites they build. There isn’t. If you choose to discriminate on the basis of disability then you should be held to account.

    Sure it can be difficult to balance one person’s freedom to do what they like with another person’s right to be treated equally (we do all believe in that don’t we?). Fortunately the web was designed to be accessible, and the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. In the interest of creating a better society I believe that those who can afford to (and Target clearly can) should be required to make their websites accessible if they will not do so voluntarily.

  5. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    @Mike
    Don’t get me wrong, as I am certainly not anit-accessible or anti-disability minded. To the contrary. At the risk of chewing my cabbage twice, I just don’t want the government involved.

    I always encourage people to “vote with their feet”, so to speak, if they don’t like something a business is doing. Certainly there are other on line merchants that once could visit to other than Target, and I would encourage anyone (disabled or otherwise) to shop elsewhere if Target is being greedy or otherwise unsympathetic to disabled users.

    On a related note, in Michigan there is no law prohibiting smoking in restaurants. I know some other states have mandated it, but I am opposed to it as a private property right. I have noticed that over time my favorite restaurants have become non-smoking on their own. Like von Mises said, “the government or the marketplace…there is no third solution”. The market place always takes care of the problem. Perhaps it takes longer than a forced government mandate, but the marektplace will always ultimately control.

    Let Target go on their merry way of ignorance. Ultimately they would be called ta task on it. But let’s keep the government out of it. My .02 cents!

  6. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    @Steve Green
    I think that the definition of “discriminate” has been modified over time. In my estimation, it originally was defined to included overt acts. But now it seems to include covert acts or acts of omission.

    I also object to a third party making a determination about what I can afford. I think that is a dangerous slope that gets slippery pretty quickly. I think it’s a much better idea to let the person (or business) doing the spending to determine what they can afford.

    Again, so someone reading ony portions of this thread not misunderstand, I am totally in favor of designing sites that are as accessible as my knowledge allows. But I want the government out of the business of forcing me to do so.

  7. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    There’s no public crying out, so businesses don’t face the same pressure. An external source of pressure is needed.

    I am in favor of external pressure, too. This site, and others, increase public awareness and ultimately will help the awareness level increase, probably to a point that there is some useful impact. It takes time, no doubt about it, but just because the process is laborious does not validate government intervention in private enterprise.

    I told you guys I was going to cause an uproar!

  8. Mel Pedley responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    @David: Your view that

    “the market place always takes care of the problem”

    is, I feel, overly naive and simplistic. History has proven that this is only the case when the market place offers direct alternatives. Where there few, or no, alternatives (at the same level) the consumer is, essentially, powerless. S/he has only two choices — make the best of a bad job or do without.

    You object to government intervening as if this was a new phenomenon. Laws that protect the rights of the disabled are not new. They go back to pre-Roman times when Celtic tribal law asserted similar rights on behalf of those who did not have the strength, or ability, to demand the same rights as the non-disabled. Later societies (such as the Roman or Spartan) which did not offer such legal protection rapidly became societies where only a privileged few were accorded, what we would regard today as, basic human rights. Frankly, and completely mangling the words of of Marx (Groucho, that is), the latter societies represent the kind of clubs where I don’t want to be a member!

    Anti-discrimination laws exist because the market place has shown, time and time again, that, left to its own devices, it doesn’t care. Ideally, the laws exist, not to be used as punitive measures but to remind individuals of their responsibilities within a humane society. If they choose to ignore those responsibilities… well, on their own head be it. Target gambled on the fact that no one would challenge its failure to uphold its responsibilities and, currently, it seems to be on a losing streak. Personally, I hope it goes all the way and they lose big time. Perhaps then, other organisations will start to take web accessibility seriously — at which point we can start to explain the benefits. But if it takes the fear of legal action — and, more importantly, the associated negative publicity — to make them listen to the very points we’ve been trying to explain for years, well, I, for one, won’t lose any sleep over it.

    @Mike: No — it’s not frivolous. The very fact that the suit is being discussed now endorses its existence. As I understand it, the focus of the action was never financial but rather to bring the issues into the public spotlight. The action proves that this is a real issue that affects real people and not a group of web developers talking pure theory.

  9. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    @Mel,
    I really appreciate your comments (and everyone else, too), as I respect your position of authority in the area of web design an accessibility. Your points are all valid, and I concede this. I certainly don’t think government intervention in private enterprise is new, but it’s historical precedence does not make me feel any better having it forced upon me.

    Target does seem to be “on a losing streak”, as you said. But let’s all remember that a business never suffers the economic loss itself - in fact, it cannot suffer that loss. Ultimately the loss is suffered by the consumer.

    In conclusion, at least for me: No, the lawsuit is not frivilous by any definition.

  10. Rimantas responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    You cannot buy love, you cannot get love by court order. Same with accessibility.
    You may enjoy it and pretend it is good for web standards and accessibility, however it is not.
    The sad thing is that too many peope think that court can fix everything.

  11. patrick h. lauke responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    @david:

    I think the government needs to stop trampling on the rights of private property owners, and that includes the right to design a flawed website.

    well then, vote to get current legislation changed. because the judge didn’t simply pull this thing out of his…out of thin air, he simply looked at the legislative framework already in place.

  12. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    @patrick,
    I understand the status of the current case law. I don’t agree with the infringement on private property rights. For instances, why doesn’t the government ban smoking IN PUBLIC rather than on someone else’s PRIVATE property? It seems to me that, logically, the government controls the PUBLIC areas…food for thought.

    But as I said, I think designing accessible sites is the way to go — just don’t demand it.

  13. Phil Smears responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 2:48 am

    Just reading through the comments on Michelle Malkins post - I’ve seen this before. Basically Joe Public works on false assumption that some special adaptation needs to be made to a web site to make it accessible to the blind. The reality, is that it’s matter of applying existing standards that have been around for years. I think large companies have had time enough to clean up their web sites and at least try and make them compliant.
    764 validation errors on target.com home page - that has to be a record doesn’t it? Must be a nightmare for the developers to work with.
    @ David - glad you posted - there would have been little in the way of debate otherwise and it at least allowed arguments to be aired.
    @ Rimantas - You cannot get love by court order. Same with Accessibility. Yeah right .. love …accessibility ….accessibility …love - no, sorry can’t quite see the link.

  14. Tommy Olsson responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 4:13 am

    For me it’s simple: if the law requires a brick-and-mortar store to be accessible for people with disabilities, then commercial websites should be required to be accessible, too.

    In this case I will make a distinction between accessibility for people with disabilities and universaility. It’s about discrimination with respect to things over which a person has no control; like disabilities, skin colour, gender, etc.

    For government sites and similar (local council, whatever) it’s different. Those are built for the general public, and should be required to provide universal access. The government has no right to dictate which browser I use, or to force me to move to a city to get broadband access.

    To those of you who are against legislation about accessible website: do you also thing that laws that ensure physical accessibility to outlets and commercial venues should be removed? If not, how do you motivate the difference? As Mike pointed out, physical accessibility should normally be far more expensive than creating a reasonably accessible website.

  15. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 6:42 am

    @Phil
    I figured my comments would spark some response!

    @Tommy

    To those of you who are against legislation about accessible website: do you also thing that laws that ensure physical accessibility to outlets and commercial venues should be removed?

    Don’t take offense to my objection, Tommy. I am generically opposed to government dictating what someone is required to do with their private proprerty. My issue is with property rights, not with web accessiblity.

    I agree with you about public government websites: those are owned by the public, and that’s a distinction that is very important. If I (as a citizen) own the website, then it’s I (as a citizen) who controls the website. But to me, the same concept applies to a website that is privately owned.

  16. Stevie D responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 6:58 am

    I think Tommy has summed up what I wanted to say pretty well, but just to add a couple of points:

    There is no excuse for creating a fundamentally inaccessible website - the only reason is a strange combination of ignorance and arrogance. Yes, there may be some features that are not easy to implement, but very few. Physical buildings may have all sorts of constraints that prevent the installation of ramps, handrails, lifts etc - none of that exists on the internet.

    One reason why I think the physical access requirements are so much more readily accepted is that business owners can see the problems faced - they can see a person in a wheelchair arrive at the front door and not be able to get up the steps. On the internet, they can’t see it for themselves, so they don’t see a problem.

    Many businesses and organisations are taking accessibility on board, and many design companies consider accessibility as an integral part of any website they produce. But there are still far too many inaccessible websites out there - and not just old ones, either - new ones are appearing all the time. Something has to be done about these, and if a lawsuit is the only way to achieve that, then that is what we have to do.

    Yes, there may be a cost and a learning curve involved. But, realistically, how big an issue is that? Most organisations either outsource the design or employ someone specifically to do it. In either case, the designers should know what they are doing. If your designers can’t or won’t come up with an accessible site, sack them! You wouldn’t tolerate this level of incompetence in any other employee or contractor, so why should you in a web designer?

  17. Elliott Cross responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 7:16 am

    Wow, lots of passion about this topic!

    While I won’t debate the article about is suing Target good or bad, I personally feel that companies that want a web presence, especially to sell their goods online, are making a big mistake in not using web standards to present the information to their visitors. I’m not talking about SEO items, or people trying to Google their site, as most of the big companies names are already out their and people know where to go to find them.

    Just as it was pointed out about ADA compliance for physical accessibility into the physical location of the building, companies should look at access for all points to their business. While the ADA is good, I still encounter issues getting my daughter into places that have been grandfathered by the ADA as non-compliant. She is in a wheelchair and there are places that we can’t take her due to lack of access. Will I sue them? Nope. This is just the nature of the business. It would require a “major change” of the business, such as a building addition, or reconfiguration for them to have to bring their new building up to ADA compliance. Most businesses know this when they look at expanding or changing their layout of the physical structure.

    I wonder if sites should be grandfathered like this? Wouldn’t it make sense, in a way, that if a site was older it would be grandfathered in? Then, if the business decided to redesign or change that site, they would then be required to make it accessible?

    Just my $.02 worth…

  18. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 9:00 am

    @Mike

    Where do you draw the line when it comes to respecting the rights of companies?

    I think the only disagreement here is one of degree. There is a point where government interference in private business or private life causes each of us to object. I just don’t want the government deciding how I spend my business dollars. It’s that simple.

    This has been a great thread and I enjoyed participating in it! :-)

  19. Jim Thatcher responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am

    These comments make me cringe. Bob Easton only went part of the way talking about the Southwest Airlines case - indeed it was dismissed in the lower court, but the lawyer screwed up on appeal where the case was dismissed on a technicality, with the judge saying “In declining to evaluate the merits of this case, we are in no way unmindful that the legal questions raised are significant.”

    I have no doubt that the ADA would have included the internet, web information and web shopping had all of that been around in 1990. I expect it will be redrafted some day soon.

    California’s Unruh Act was drafted since the web became important in everyday life. It does talk about the web, and the judge in the Target case agreed with Plaintiffs that the inaccessibility of the Target web site is covered by that law. And the fact that the Target site has improved is immaterial. You don’t get the case thrown out just because you stopped doing something (allegedly) illegal.

    Those of you talking about not wanting the government “in your face” reap daily benefits of government regulation. Corporate profits don’t demand clean rivers and streams, healthy workplaces, safe tools and toys. Government regulations do. And civil rights - y’all must be too young to remember just how bad it was before the civil rights laws of the 60’s - not that everything is OK now.

    Oh yes, and that big company that Bob talked about. I know that company. I worked there for 37 years. They didn’t adopt an accessibility policy because of public spirit. IBM adopted a policy of accessibility (a corporate instruction) for corporate profit, to respond to their biggest customer (the federal government) requiring accessible Information Technology.

  20. Tommy Olsson responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am

    @David: rest assured I’m not taking offence. :) I can see how my comment could be interpreted as somewhat confrontational, but that’s not how I meant it to be. I’d really like to know if those who are opposed to outlawing discrimination on the web also think people should be allowed to discriminate in the physical world. If not, I’d like to hear how they motivate the difference.

    It’s easy to say that if a person cannot access a certain site they should go to a competitor. But what if there is no competitor? Or what if the competitors’ sites are equally inaccessible?

    I could understand the reluctance if building an accessible site incurred large costs or lots of time. But it doesn’t. In fact, a plain HTML document with proper, semantic markup is inherently accessible (at a technical level). All we can do is ruin that by putting up more or less unnecessary barriers. In other words, we have to make an effort to cause the page to be inaccessible!

    Having said that, accessibility is about much more than the technical parts. As someone once said, “the hard part about accessibility is the stuff outside the angle brackets.” But ensuring reasonable technical accessibility is an important first step that doesn’t require much at all from the designer or developer.

  21. David Zemens responds:
    Posted: October 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    @Tommy,
    No worries — no offense taken.

    I guess for me it boils down to this: I don’t like the government interfering in private business. I also try to develop accessible websites…not because it’s the law, or because I am afraid of a lawsuit, but because it’s the right thing to do. Maybe I am being naive, but I think this is evidence (on a small scale) that the system works *without* government interference.

  22. Jason R. responds:
    Posted: October 12th, 2007 at 9:17 am

    I haven’t read through all of the comments above, so forgive me if this has already been addressed. Isn’t Target.com a publicly traded entity? Last time I checked it was. Didn’t they forgo these restrictive acts when they declared themselves public?

    I am a staunch believer in the freedom of individuals and a “less government is more” approach to this country. But I believe Target relinquished their “option” to discriminate in this case.

  23. Is the Target Lawsuit Frivolous? responds:
    Posted: December 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    […] Last week all hell broke loose. For web accessibility there was a triumph of sorts. And in the world of web-is-money-first a small blow that is feared to mushroom into a costly problem. Some Internet merchants may feel they have better things to do than to acknowledge and cater to the needs of a “small” user group like the disabled — specifically the blind in the Target case (to learn more, links are provided later in this entry). Some people feel this lawsuit is frivolous and that private businesses should be left to decide on their own whether or not they accommodate these small user groups. Others, meanwhile, think the lawsuit is a good move and quite necessary. Feeds […]

Sorry. Comments are closed.




Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.