Main > Everything Else

Blind people sue Target because they can't access Target's website.

<< < (31/33) > >>

boykster:
From a wiki article on the history of target

Target.com: owns and oversees the company's e-commerce initiatives, such as the Target.com domain. Founded in early 2000 as target.direct, it was formed by separating the company's existing e-commerce operations from its retailing division, and combining it with its Rivertown Trading direct marketing unit into a stand-alone subsidiary.[25] In 2002, target.direct and Amazon.com's subsidiary Amazon Enterprise Solutions created a partnership where Amazon.com would provide order fulfilment and guest services for Target.com in exchange for fixed and variable fees. This electronic commerce relationship between target.direct and Amazon Enterprise Solutions will last until August 2010.[30][31] After the company sold Marshall Field's and Mervyns in 2004, target.direct became Target.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Subsidiaries

tommy:
I might be able to get behind this "help the blind" thing alot more if they didn't try to sue the company. If they wanted to just make it so blind people were able to navigate websites easier and just make life generally easier they could have gone about it in another way. The way they are going about this now i could care less about helping anyone.

shmokes:
How do you know?  The case hasn't even gone to trial yet.  Where are you getting these facts?  I mean, if I drive up to Ft. Lauderdale tomorrow and pick up a bunch of glass from you, under the understanding that I'll Paypal you the money on Friday, it'd be pretty lame if on Monday I'm served with process for breach of contract.  But what if you call me on Monday and I say that I decided not to pay you?  Or what if you call me and I say, "Yeah . . . I'm going to get to that.  Sorry."  And then I say the same thing the next Monday.  And the next Monday.  And the next Monday. 

Is there no point when it becomes appropriate to sue somebody?  What if Target was fully aware of the requirements of the law and simply ignored it because they disagree with it?

tommy:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 08, 2007, 08:59:12 pm ---
Is there no point when it becomes appropriate to sue somebody?  What if Target was fully aware of the requirements of the law and simply ignored it because they disagree with it?

--- End quote ---

Having a site that was not up to requirements is no reason to sue. It may be time to take some action against that company but suing should not be that action.

Suing a company is reserved for people who have been hurt or caused pain or have taken a loss by no fault of their own.  No one is hurt here in anyway by this.

Even though i don't think this is a problem, now that it is out in the open they can fix it. They should not be sued over this.

If you want to support blind people or handicapped people that's fine, but not this way.

shmokes:
Tommy, it's out in the open BECAUSE they sued them!  For all you know they've written them a thousand letters and called a thousand times telling them, "Your website is required by law to be ADA compliant and is not."

What you are saying, Tommy, makes no sense at all.  In the glass situation above I have a legal duty to pay you.  I would agree that legal action should not be your FIRST option, but what are you supposed to do when every other option has proven ineffective?  Target has a legal duty them, just like I have a legal duty to pay you, or your neighbor has a legal duty to keep his vehicles parked on his side of the property line.  You ask your neighbor to move his car, of course.  But if the ---maternal-smurf--- refuses, you turn to a legal remedy.

You may think nobody is hurt here, but many people would disagree.  Importantly, the law disagrees with you.  Target is required to provide them access to their website.  If they don't, the blind people are hurt by this.  Target is given a business license under the understanding that it will abide by the rules society places on it.  Society says, if you want to do business here we need you to accommodate this specific subset of people who got kind of a ---smurfy--- deal.  As pointed out already, Target does pretty well under this arrangement (half a billion dollars profit in the first three months of this year alone).  I just really don't think society is asking that much in return.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version