The Internet is a cornerstone of the modern economy. One of the country’s largest retailers cannot exclude an entire segment of the population from its goods and services. This lawsuit is a warning to all large companies with an Internet presence that the blind will not be left behind on the information superhighway.[8] | ||
| --From NFB v. Target Fact Sheet | ||
Around the world, there are many international laws securing the rights of people with disabilities with respect to web content. In the U.S., these include the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, Section 508; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990; and in the mobile space, Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act. All of these are in addition to various state-specific policies.
In the UK, the primary legislation is the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). Unlike Section 508, the DDA applies to all websites, not just those that are government-funded.
At the time of this writing, the European Union (EU) does not have specific legislation, but several EU member states (including Germany, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal) have legal mandates for web accessibility. In addition, an agreement known as the Riga Declaration, signed unanimously by the EU, requires each member state to make its own governmental sites accessible by 2010.
Australia, Canada, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand all have related policies. Visit http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ for more information.
As we write, some of these laws are being tested and others are being refreshed–strengthening their applicability to the Web with specific guidance for web applications.
One recent case is the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) versus Target Corporation. The NFB sued Target in a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Target customers in the United States who are blind and were unable to use the website before 2006. Early on in the case, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel rejected Target’s position that their site couldn’t be sued under the ADA because the services of Target.com were separate from Target’s brick-and-mortar stores. The following is from her ruling on September 7, 2006:
[T]he ‘ordinary meaning’ of the ADA’s prohibition against discrimination in the enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges, is that whatever goods or services the place provides, it cannot discriminate on the basis of disability in providing enjoyment of those goods and services.
Judge Patel also rejected Target’s argument that its liability should be limited because it eventually made some improvements to its site. The key issue was whether, and how thoroughly, they responded to users’ problems.
Target settled the case in August 2008. While not admitting any wrongdoing, the company did pay $6 million in damages to the plaintiffs. This does leave the question of the ADA’s applicability to the Web somewhat unresolved. However, a settlement of that size is an eye-opener. Had Target simply worked in good faith to resolve the issues once the plaintiffs had approached them (in 2005), it could have spent a tiny fraction of the amount it did—5%, or $300,000, would have been more than enough. Instead, it’ll give $40,000 a year to NFB for monitoring, on top of that $6 million payoff, all before it spends a dime on actual accessibility repair.
All that said, legal action is the last resort for accessibility advocates. A suit filed against a company is costly in terms of time, money, and goodwill. But in this day and age, wherever you are in the world, there is no excuse for discrimination.
For more information, refer to the NFB v. Target Fact Sheet at http://dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php.