Target Pays $6 Million To Settle Accessibility Lawsuit

Written by Evan Schuman
September 3rd, 2008

After a two-year legal battle, Target has agreed to pay $6 million and make its Web site more accessible to the blind in a class action settlement with the National Federation of the Blind.

Quite a few retailers have been involved in site changes to make the Web more accessible to those with vision difficulties, but Target has been the most aggressive in fighting such efforts. As such, Target’s settlement has an especially strong chance of pressuring retailers to aggressively embrace such changes.

The settlement, which was reached on Aug. 27, resolved what began on Feb. 6, 2006, when the NFB sued Target. The NFB said Target’s site violated the American with Disabilities Act because it’s not easily accessible to blind users. The case was certified a year later as a class action suit for legally blind individuals who couldn’t easily access

"It puts a monetary value on indiscretion and, in essence, people will pay more attention to the subject as a whole. It’s now been crystallized about what it means, and that’s a good thing," said Terry Golesworthy, the president of the Customer Respect Group a company that analyzes behavior between corporate Web sites and online consumers. "The thing that’s more troubling to me is the fact that it’s very specific to that case, it’s a very specific thing that takes the access argument potentially into a limited role."

Golesworthy said the rules put in place by the NFB leave out a lot of other issues regarding people with disabilities and their access to Web sites. For example, this case may not apply to users with disabilities other than blindness.

Still, Golesworthy believes this settlement will motivate corporations to put defense plans into place in preparation for similar lawsuits to follow. He said because corporations now know how much it will cost to implement similar guidelines to Target’s, and how much of a hit they will take if they’re sued, they are probably formulating defense plans.

The settlement requires Target to create a $6 million fund for the settlement class, and it also requires the retailer to abide by the Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines, a 34-page set of technical design rules that explains how the site should be built. The guidelines are meant to ensure "that blind guests using screen-reader software may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of use," according to court documents.

In addition, Target is required to achieve NFB nonvisual accessibility certification, which means the company has to make 18 detailed changes to its site by February 2009. The NFB will monitor with quarterly testing, annual user testing and annual technical assessments by a consultant, and it must be notified of any new templates the retailer develops.

To prepare for all of these changes, the agreement says there will be "periodic one-day training sessions" for employees in charge of coding The retailer also has to provide the NFB with a quarterly summary of any complaints it receives from users using the screen-reader technology.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.