Target Accessibility Lawsuit Case Study: The Case That Changed Web Accessibility

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation is the landmark case that established the first legal precedent requiring a commercial website to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Filed in 2006 and settled in 2008, the case transformed how businesses think about web accessibility and set the stage for thousands of subsequent lawsuits. This case study examines what happened, why it mattered, and what organizations should learn from it.

The Complaint

In early 2006, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), along with NFB-California and a named plaintiff, Bruce Sexton, sued Target Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that Target.com was inaccessible to consumers who are blind, violating three laws:

• Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation.
• The California Unruh Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal access to business establishments.
• The California Disabled Persons Act, which provides protections against disability-based discrimination.

The specific accessibility failures were fundamental. Target.com lacked alternative text on images, meaning screen readers could not describe product photos, navigation elements, or buttons. The site also required mouse interaction for critical functions, making it unusable for people who navigate by keyboard. These were not obscure technical issues; they were barriers that completely prevented blind users from shopping on the website.

The Court’s Ruling

The case reached a critical turning point when the court ruled that Target.com qualified as a place of public accommodation under the ADA because it was closely connected to Target’s physical stores. This was the first time a U.S. court had applied the ADA’s public accommodation requirements to a commercial website. The ruling established that businesses could not maintain an inaccessible website while arguing that the ADA only applies to physical locations.

The Settlement

In August 2008, Target reached a class action settlement with the NFB. The terms included:

• $6 million fund for members of the California settlement class to make claims for damages.
• Attorney’s fees paid separately by Target.
• Three-year monitoring agreement during which the NFB would perform accessibility testing of Target.com.
• NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Web Certification, which Target agreed to obtain and maintain.
• Specific technical remediation including adding alt text, enabling keyboard navigation, and ensuring screen reader compatibility throughout the shopping and checkout experience.

What Target Did After the Settlement

Rather than treating the settlement as a burden to be minimized, Target invested in building a genuine accessibility program. The retailer worked closely with the NFB during the three-year monitoring period and achieved the NFB’s certification. This transformation changed Target’s reputation from an accessibility cautionary tale to a case study in meaningful remediation.

Today, Target.com includes accessibility features across its shopping experience, and the company has maintained its commitment beyond the original settlement terms.

Why This Case Matters

The Target case established several precedents that continue to shape web accessibility law:

The ADA applies to websites. Before this case, there was significant legal uncertainty about whether websites qualified as places of public accommodation. The court’s ruling that Target.com was covered under Title III provided a foundation for subsequent litigation.

Commercial websites have accessibility obligations. The ruling applied specifically to a retail website, making clear that e-commerce platforms must be accessible.

Settlements can drive real change. The monitoring agreement and certification requirements created accountability that extended beyond a one-time payment.

Class action viability. The case demonstrated that web accessibility claims could proceed as class actions, increasing the potential financial exposure for non-compliant businesses.

Impact on Subsequent Litigation

The Target settlement opened the floodgates. From fewer than 100 web accessibility lawsuits per year in the early 2010s, the number has grown to over 4,000 annually by 2024. While most of these cases involve smaller businesses, the legal theories established in the Target case underpin the majority of them.

The case also influenced the Domino’s Pizza lawsuit (Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC), which reached the Supreme Court in 2019. For that case study, see Domino’s Pizza accessibility case study.

For the broader litigation landscape, see worst accessibility fails and lessons learned. For the full collection, visit the universal design case studies guide.

Key Takeaways

• The NFB v. Target case (2006-2008) established the first precedent that commercial websites must comply with the ADA as places of public accommodation.
• Target paid $6 million in damages and entered a three-year monitoring agreement with the NFB, including obtaining accessibility certification.
• The specific failures were fundamental: missing alt text and mouse-dependent navigation that completely blocked screen reader users.
• The case enabled the exponential growth of web accessibility litigation, from fewer than 100 annual cases to over 4,000 by 2024.

Sources

• https://www.ada.gov/ — U.S. Department of Justice ADA information covering Title III requirements applied in the Target case
• https://nfb.org/ — National Federation of the Blind, plaintiff organization in NFB v. Target Corporation
• https://nfb.org/about-us/nfb-nonvisual-accessibility-web-certification — NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Web Certification that Target obtained under the settlement
• https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ — WCAG 2.0 standard referenced as the technical baseline for web accessibility in settlement terms