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

[ChadTower]

The complaint is that it is coded in such a way that blind assistance software packages are unable to reasonably translate it into something the blind can use.  Basically, it's too complex for the blind packages to handle.

[Dartful Dodger]

Target's website is not their product and you know it.  They do not sell you their website. 

There's a restaurant down south that sells hamburgers.

The restaurant itself is not their product. They do not sell their restaurant. 

Maybe after shmokes gets his law degree he can defend the restaurant's low quality service to its black customers.

[ChadTower]

Being black is not covered by the ADA.

[leapinlew]

Could youtube be sued because it doesn't offer close caption? Could video game manufacturers be sued because they don't make racing games accessible to people without feet?

[shmokes]

leap,

You are really having trouble with this.  Products are not required to be ADA compliant.  They just aren't.  Target has to have ramps for legless people.  They don't have to stop selling shoes.  People can be sued for failing to comply with the law.  ADA says that retailers have to provide blind people with equal access to their facilities and services. 

Are videogame manufacturers retailers?

No.

Are racing games facilities or services?

No.  (Don't argue.  They really and truly aren't.  Take some business courses if you don't believe me.  Or forget about it since the law wouldn't apply to them even if videogames were services).

The YouTube thing is also a "no", but that question is at least somewhat reasonable.  While YouTube's videos would still probably count as a product more than anything else, Closed Captioning is dealt with in a different section of ADA.  From very briefly skimming the law, it looks like only televised public service announcements are required to have closed captioning, and the stations are not even required to provide the captioning.  The law requires the government to provide the captioning along with the public service announcement, so if the station gets the announcement without the captions, they can run it without the captions.

Anyway, a business only has to make reasonable accomodations.  If providing the accommodations would cost $10 million dollars, or put the company out of business, they won't be required to do it.  Obviously a company like YouTube, that allows users to upload homemade content could not go through and add closed captions to all the videos that get uploaded on a daily basis.

leapinlew, does it occur to you that maybe the reason you can't seem to come up with a ridiculous example that actually works here, is that the present case isn't actually ridiculous?  Just a thought.

[leapinlew]

You are really having trouble with this. 

leapinlew, does it occur to you that maybe the reason you can't seem to come up with a ridiculous example that actually works here, is that the present case isn't actually ridiculous?  Just a thought.

Has it ever occurred to you that I actually am having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind this suit? The reason for my "ridiculous" examples is because I'm trying to actually understand? To me, it looks like a frivolous law suit, but thanks to some articulate explanations - it's becoming more clear. Based on your previous explanations - I thought my youtube and video game examples made sense.

So, while I appreciate the informative response, your pompous attitude can sit-n-spin.

[shmokes]

Okay . . . pull the injured bird card.  On the previous page you likened this suit to an archery group suing target cos their logo makes them shoot arrows at their computer screens.  You can say you were kidding, and I believe that you were inasmuch as you don't really think that the archery group would win that suit.  But the underlying message was that these blind people are ---smurfing--- retards.

I'm sure you'll give me a small amount of latitude for not realizing that your interests in this thread had suddenly become purely academic.

You might also notice that I treated your YouTube question with plenty of respect.  I even took the time to read the law for you (though it's only a google search away if you want to know more).  But you might notice, if you read through the thread, that there have been quite a few examples like that one thrown out already, and I'm not the only one who keeps saying, "That is a product.  Products don't have to be ADA compliant!"  In fact, one of your previous examples was about a piece of software -- not too far removed from a video game if you ask me.  If Tommy asks if shoe manufacturers are liable to people with no feet, and someone points out that products aren't covered, and then Psik0tik, in a sudden fit of originality, says this is just like glove manufacturers getting sued by people with no hands, and someone points out that products aren't covered, and it's been pointed out numerous other times in this thread that the law does not require that products be ADA compliant, eventually, I'm sorry, I have to say, "Products are not covered by ADA.  You know what a product is.  Bringing up example after example of items that are clearly products is ridiculous."

[patrickl]

Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

[KenToad]

Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

It seems premature to suggest that it's a frivolous lawsuit, i.e. "No discrimination there," just because you can't see the point.  I can't see the point either, but I'll continue to suspend my judgment at least until I hear a few of the points made during the actual decision.

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . I'd be interested to see the plaintiff's complaint.  I wouldn't be surprised if I could get it from Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw, but my school (unlike almost every school in the nation) feels the need to torture 1Ls by teaching us to do all our research the old-fashioned way, by book in the law library, before giving us electronic access to everything.  C'est la vie.  Only a couple more months.

[patrickl]

Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

It seems premature to suggest that it's a frivolous lawsuit, i.e. "No discrimination there," just because you can't see the point.  I can't see the point either, but I'll continue to suspend my judgment at least until I hear a few of the points made during the actual decision.

Well I was asking for specifics, but only Chad responded with some broad complaint that they cannot access the site. So my statement is based on that being the actual complaint.

[tommy]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

[KenToad]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

I would say read Shmokes' replies regarding products versus services.  I have no idea how this would play out regarding niche services, either.  I also don't see how what you're saying relates to the current topic.   

[psik0tik]

Yes they do sell they're website....almost all target commercials say in them "and visit target.com for more valuable info" That is luring people to the website hence it is a selling point hence it can be a "product of" target. And yes it is a service to but it generates income which makes it...again...a product. Go here and read the definition of a product before you start talking.

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

[ChadTower]

In order for that to be accurate, you'd have to consider the Target retail building a product as well.  They do the same thing with physical stores.  The website is simply the infrastructure by which they offer their products.  In this regard it is exactly like the building that a store sits in.

EVERYTHING in retail "generates income".  It is all part of the "revenue vs operating cost" equation. 

[hulkster]

i wish i was in a minority...then i could get what i wanted by complaining.

[JamIt]

The air force was interested in linking to one of our web apps and we had to do some tweaking to become Section 508 compliant (an accessibilty guideline created by the government).  Just an FYI, this website http://webxact.watchfire.com/ can help verify your site for compliance.
--JamIt

[ahofle]

Just an FYI, this website http://webxact.watchfire.com/ can help verify your site for compliance.

Thx for the excellent link!

[tommy]

What ever happen to the days where you could run your business how ever the hell you saw fit? Now everyone has something to say about it and even have the balls to try to sue you over it. If you don't like their site or can't use it then don't shop there and move on.

I could see if they went out of their way to discriminate or the site was racist, otherwise get over it. Someone having trouble using a website is their problem and their problem alone, atleast it should be. IF Target wanted to accommodate these people it should be up to them and if not, so be it.

[psik0tik]

Amen

[ahofle]

What ever happen to the days where you could run your business how ever the hell you saw fit?

I don't understand why this is so confusing.
IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!! 
If you think the law is dumb, write your congress person and tell them to exclude blind accessible websites from the ADA.

[psik0tik]

We understand that it's against the law. What tommy is saying is that it's become to uptight.

[tommy]

This is not about it being against the law, it's about money. Someone in this blind persons family is pushing this issue for them.

If i had a site that does not have blind assisted software i would not have to deal with any of this because i have no money, only people with money will be sued if we let this go on.

[ahofle]

I guess my point is that the motives of whomever started the lawsuit are really irrelevant.  I'm sure this whole case will make website accessibility a bigger priority to all but the dumbest corporations and governments.  We've had an ADA project on the back burner for years now where I work, and this lawsuit will almost definitely make it an immediate priority.  So the end result of all this will be good for the blind, even if the instigators are just in it for the money.

And FWIW, I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bringing this country down.

[patrickl]

The air force was interested in linking to one of our web apps and we had to do some tweaking to become Section 508 compliant (an accessibilty guideline created by the government).  Just an FYI, this website http://webxact.watchfire.com/ can help verify your site for compliance.
--JamIt

Hey that is a cool link.

I ran it on the target website and it did come up with 15 errors (with 331 instances) and 44 warnings (with 298) instances. So of course it could be better, but on such a complex website it doesn't seem excessive to me.

[ChadTower]

Whoa.  Our retail website came back with 2 errors in 5 instances.  Nice.

[shmokes]

Yes they do sell they're website....almost all target commercials say in them "and visit target.com for more valuable info" That is luring people to the website hence it is a selling point hence it can be a "product of" target. And yes it is a service to but it generates income which makes it...again...a product. Go here and read the definition of a product before you start talking.

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

God, I laugh and I laugh.  If you actually click on psik0tik's link, you'll be in for a rather humorous surprise.  He selected his definition out of multiple offered.  Here is the very first line of the Wiki:

In business, a product is a good or service which can be bought and sold.  In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need. In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods.

Psik0tik, when we're talking about a retailer's products, which of those three definitions do you think is the actual appropriate one to use? 

[shmokes]

i wish i was in a minority...then i could get what i wanted by complaining.

Me too.  Minorities have it so much better in America than white males. 

Specifically, being blind would be ---smurfing--- awesome.  God, I almost want to gouge out my eyes just to get in on this law suit.

[Ed_McCarron]

Me too.  Minorities have it so much better in America than white males. 

White male IS a minority anymore.  Toss 'middle class' into the mix and I think theres 3 of us left.

Theres 5 people at my shop.  I just had to fill out a equal employment form to be able to bid jobs in the state of Jersey.

I need to break my 5 people down into Asian, Hispanic, Black, AmerInd, Female, and OTHER.

WTF?  Why is white male "OTHER?"

I'm going to change my name to Chief Shaniqua Pablo Running Bull Phong Sharpton.  Maybe that'll make them happy.

Sometimes it just goes too far...

EDit:  Woops, sorry, veering into P&R territory there.  Sorry Tommy.

[tommy]

EDit:  Woops, sorry, veering into P&R territory there.  Sorry Tommy.

Hey, thanks for thinking about me.

[ChadTower]

Specifically, being blind would be ---smurfing--- awesome.  God, I almost want to gouge out my eyes just to get in on this law suit.

With all of the dead kittens around here I'm surprised were not all blind.

[Xam]

I think this is just about shopping, at least according to the linked article from the first post.

For now.

Um . . . no, forever (or until Congress decides to change the law).  When people talk about these law suits like this as being "frivolous", they commonly have severe misconceptions about how the court system works.  If someone sued you for not making your personal website blind-person-friendly, the case would never go to trial.  First, the blind person's lawyer would tell them that they had no case.  But let's say the blind person insisted on suing you, and either represented himself or found an attorney who was willing to represent him in spite of advising him that he had no case (actually telling a blind client that there was any possibility of winning here would be grounds for malpractice, which would end the lawyer's career).  Even here, the case will never go to trial.  You'll simply file for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim.  This means that you concede all of the plaintiff's allegations.  You don't deny any of them.  But even assuming all of the plaintiff's allegations are true, they do not establish a cause of action.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.  The ADA REQUIRES businesses to accommodate blind people.  It specifically mentions retail stores; it specifically mentions blind people. 

The law imposes a duty on me to not do anything that would create an unreasonable risk for you.  If I negligently build a homemade flamethrower out of a Super Soaker squirt gun, and while I'm showing it off, accidentally light some bushes on fire and the fire spreads to your home, burning it down, I am liable.  You have a cause of action, because the law REQUIRES that I exercise reasonable care, and the breach of my duty to you gives you a cause of action.

Now, if the law IMPOSES a duty on all businesses to accommodate provide effective communication for blind people (and, yes, it has been specifically extended to online businesses, in case anybody thought that might be an open loophole), and a business breaches that duty, how is it a frivolous lawsuit for a blind person to sue any more than the hypothetical I gave you above? 

If you don't like it, blame the law, not the judiciary.  It's not like this stems from some "activist court" (as people like to call them), reading a protection for blind people into the constitution where one doesn't exist.  It's just a federal law.  Congress passed it.  It's not unconstitutional.  Therefore Target is required to abide by it.  If they break the law, injured parties have a case.


edit: thread's moving fast.  added quote for clarity

The website is there for blind people to use. From reading the posts on this thread, the problem seems to be that the software the visually impaired are using, is having compatibility issues with the site. If this is true, would it not be wiser to petition the software companies to make a better product?

Xam

[psik0tik]

Yes they do sell they're website....almost all target commercials say in them "and visit target.com for more valuable info" That is luring people to the website hence it is a selling point hence it can be a "product of" target. And yes it is a service to but it generates income which makes it...again...a product. Go here and read the definition of a product before you start talking.

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

God, I laugh and I laugh.  If you actually click on psik0tik's link, you'll be in for a rather humorous surprise.  He selected his definition out of multiple offered.  Here is the very first line of the Wiki:

In business, a product is a good or service which can be bought and sold.  In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need. In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods.

Psik0tik, when we're talking about a retailer's products, which of those three definitions do you think is the actual appropriate one to use? 

It would be the marketing one since we are talking about a website. I didn't think I had to spell it out.

[shmokes]

psik0tik, when we say that the ADA doesn't cover products we don't mean that you can find a line in the statute that says, "Products need not be ADA compliant."  There is no "product exemption" in the ADA.

Understand, when we say that ADA doesn't cover products we are talking about the products in business definition from your Wikipedia link, because we're talking about the products that Target sells and their customers buy. 

The ADA says that retailers must make accommodations to give blind people equal access to their facilities and services.  We are pointing out to people that Tickle-Me-Elmo is not a facility or a service.  It's just a product, and products aren't mentioned in the ADA.  But taking their website, which clearly can be defined as either a facility or a service (and probably both) and saying, "Look, I found this definition of the word "product" that you could apply to the website, so the website must be exempt," is to completely misunderstand what we are saying. 

It's not a matter of showing that their website is a product (which is a retarded claim anyway.  You don't believe it. You just think it could be a convenient legal loophole that can be exploited).  The ADA doesn't say anything about products.  What you must show is that the website ISN'T a facility or service.  Even if it is a product (it isn't in any relevant sense of the word), it is still subject to ADA regulations if it is also a facility or service.

[Ed_McCarron]

Facility or service, huh?

How about the self-serve car wash near me with the braille labels on the push buttons?  I"ll have to get pics next time I'm there.

And don't tell me that they use the same consoles for the walk-up car washes.

[shmokes]

I don't know.  That car wash would definitely have to have ramps and stuff for other disabilities.  But courts use common sense.  They're not going to punish a car wash for not providing equal access to people who could never use the service to begin with.  Anyway, you have to have standing to file suit, and if a person's illegal behavior hasn't harmed you in any way, you have no case.  It would never go to trial.

[tommy]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

That's where i was going with this post, and they won't bother if a person could not actually use the product or service.

I feel there is no difference in this and a target website, they would and could not ever really use it.

And, they could not ever really buy anything at the store. Someone would have to do it for them.

[ChadTower]

They may need to have braille signs so that the blind can find out what is behind the door... so that they won't walk in on a car wash in operation.

[patrickl]

That's where i was going with this post, and they won't bother if a person could not actually use the product or service.

I feel there is no difference in this and a target website, they would and could not ever really use it.

And, they could not ever really buy anything at the store. Someone would have to do it for them.

They could for instance buy a TV, an ipod, some toys for their kids, a suitcase or lots of other things.

[Ed_McCarron]

They may need to have braille signs so that the blind can find out what is behind the door... so that they won't walk in on a car wash in operation.

No door.  Its the kind of car wash where you drive in, put in $1.75 in quarters, and get 8 minutes of water.

The braille is on the machine you put the quarters in.