NFB v. Target Corporation

The Target case (2006-2008) was the first major e-commerce accessibility lawsuit and resulted in a $6 million settlement that fundamentally changed how retailers approach website accessibility. This case established that commercial websites must be accessible under the ADA.

Landmark Settlement

The $6 million class action settlement was the largest of its kind at the time and set the precedent that retailers with physical stores must also make their websites accessible.

Case Overview

Case Information
Full Citation
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, No. C 06-01802 MHP (N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs
National Federation of the Blind (class action)
Defendant
Target Corporation
Settlement Amount
$6 million (plus attorney's fees)
Key Issues Decided
  • Does ADA Title III apply to commercial websites?
  • Do retailers with physical stores have web accessibility obligations?
  • What accessibility standards apply?

Background & Facts

In February 2006, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) filed a class action lawsuit against Target Corporation, alleging that Target.com was inaccessible to blind users. The specific accessibility barriers included:

Accessibility Barriers on Target.com
  • Missing Alt Text: Product images lacked alternative text descriptions
  • Image Maps: Navigation relied on image maps without text alternatives
  • Form Labels: Input fields did not have proper labels
  • Keyboard Navigation: Users could not navigate using keyboard only
  • Mouse-Only Functions: Critical features required mouse interaction
  • Screen Reader Incompatibility: Site structure prevented screen reader navigation

The NFB argued that these barriers prevented blind customers from independently browsing products, comparing prices, using coupons, and completing purchases on Target.com.

Case Timeline

February 2006

NFB files class action lawsuit in Northern District of California

September 2006

Court denies Target's motion to dismiss, ruling that ADA may apply to websites connected to physical stores

October 2007

Court certifies nationwide class of blind Target.com users

August 2008

Parties reach $6 million settlement agreement

October 2008

Court approves final settlement; Target commits to ongoing accessibility

The Court's Reasoning

Key Holdings (Motion to Dismiss)
1. Nexus to Physical Store

The court held that Target.com was sufficiently connected to Target's physical stores because customers could use the website to access store services (pharmacy refills, gift registries, store information). This "nexus" brought the website within ADA Title III coverage.

2. Discrimination in Access to Services

The court found that inaccessible web features could constitute discrimination in access to the services of a place of public accommodation (Target stores).

3. California Law Claims

The court also allowed claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act, which provide stronger protections than federal law.

"The ADA applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of the statute."

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, N.D. California

Settlement Terms

Financial Terms
  • $6 million damages fund for class members
  • Additional $3.7 million in attorney's fees
  • Individual class members received varying amounts based on claims
Remediation Terms
  • Make Target.com accessible to screen readers
  • Provide text alternatives for all images
  • Enable keyboard navigation
  • Hire accessibility consultant for 3 years
  • Train web developers on accessibility
  • Annual third-party accessibility audits

Impact & Significance

Industry Impact
  • First Major E-commerce Case: Established that retail websites have ADA obligations
  • Nexus Test: Created the "nexus" standard connecting websites to physical stores
  • Industry Wake-Up Call: Prompted major retailers to evaluate website accessibility
  • WCAG Recognition: Settlement referenced WCAG as an appropriate standard
Legal Precedent
  • Frequently cited in subsequent website accessibility cases
  • Established viability of class actions for web accessibility
  • Demonstrated potential financial exposure for non-compliance
  • Laid groundwork for Domino's and other landmark cases

Lessons for Organizations

Key Takeaways
  • Websites connected to physical stores must be accessible
  • Class action exposure can result in significant damages
  • Proactive accessibility is far less expensive than litigation
  • WCAG provides a recognized compliance framework
  • Ongoing monitoring and testing is essential
Warning Signs
  • Images without alt text
  • Forms without labels
  • Mouse-only interactions
  • Keyboard navigation failures
  • Screen reader incompatibility

Related Cases

Robles v. Domino's

Supreme Court denied cert
Gil v. Winn-Dixie

First trial verdict
NAD v. Netflix

Streaming captioning
Case Summary
Settlement
$6 million (plus $3.7M fees)
Significance
First major e-commerce ADA case
Standard
WCAG referenced in settlement
Year
2006-2008
Related Resources
Key Lesson

If customers can perform actions on your website related to your physical stores, your website must be accessible. The "nexus" test connects online and offline services.