Back in October I wrote about a pending lawsuit against Target claiming the discount store’s website was not accessible to the blind. Target’s attempt to have the case dismissed but was rejected by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who then certified the case as a class action. I wrote at the time:

Not only is the judge allowing the lawsuit to continue, she also certified it as being a class action lawsuit, allowing hundreds of thousands of blind people to join. The question that needs to be asked in this scenario, is exactly how much power does the government have to regulate private industry. If Target does not have the proper code embedded in their website which would allow another companies software to work, so be it. They are accepting the fact that they will lose the business of the visually impaired who will not be able to shop online at their website.

If the judge rules against Target in this case, the next question which would need to be asked is, whose responsibility should it be to make Target’s website compatible with a third party software? These software programs which are quite expensive, with the most popular one selling for $895. Should it not be the responsibility of the company making the software to ensure it is compatible with all websites?

Today Stop The ACLU is reporting Target has lost the fight, and will be forced to pay $6 million to visually impaired Californians who have tried unsuccessfully to use the site. This ruling is in direct opposition to a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines which ruled:

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.”

Unfortunately “plain and unambiguous language” does not have any meaning in the San Francisco Judicial system. Rather than read the law as it is written, .S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel allowed the lawsuit to proceed based on how the law should be written, at least in the opinion of the Judge. As a result of the settlement, Target will now be forced to pay $6 million for legally blind Californians who have tried to access target.com since February 2003, using their own screen-reader software, and have failed because of the site’s limitations.

“Claimants will be entitled to $3,500 each, or $7,000 if they have tried more than once. Claims must be filed under penalty of perjury and will be reviewed by an administrator. ”

I suppose it is only a matter of time before You Tube will be required to add closed captioning to their user videos as well.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Features, Politics