United States: Protection Under Title III Continues To Expand Beyond Brick-And-Mortar Accommodation To The World Wide Web: “National Federation Of The Blind v. Target Corp.”— AND MORE

From its inception, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), has been a hotbed of litigation. The goal of Title III is to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to participate in the programs, services, privileges and activities "of any place of public accommodation." See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The statute defines "places of public accommodation" to include virtually all retail stores, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, hospitals, parks, and offices. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).

One of the "hot topics" today regarding Title III is whether it applies to more than just brick-and-mortar stores or physical places of public accommodation. In today's cyber age, it is of no surprise that many places of public accommodation operate their own Web sites offering services to their patrons and the public, including hours of operation, locations, products to purchase, online job applications, and customer service or Human Resources contact information. Other owners and operators of Web sites may offer services and goods exclusively on Web sites. Depending on how the Web site was developed, these Web sites and the services they provide may not be accessible to individuals who are visually impaired. Consequently, lawsuits brought by the blind and disability advocacy groups have posed the question: Does Title III guarantee individuals with disabilities equal opportunity or accessibility to services provided over the Internet? Or simply put, does a Web site constitute a "public accommodation" under the Act?

The ADA does not explicitly define whether a "place of public accommodation" must be a physical place or facility, nor does it directly address the accessibility of the Internet to individuals with disabilities. The Department of Justice's regulations implementing Title III also do not address the Internet.1 Individuals with disabilities and those in favor of a broad definition of "public accommodation" contend that the Internet was not addressed by Congress when it passed the ADA in 1990 merely because cyberspace was in its infancy at that time and not as pertinent an issue as it is today. They argue that Congress chose not to narrow the definition of "public accommodation" to physical spaces, but rather intended to eliminate a broad range of discrimination against the disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 108 (1990). They point to broad language in the statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and contend that "discrimination" encompasses the denial of opportunity, to participate in any program or service, and the provision of separate, but unequal, goods or services to individuals with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii-iv). The term "services" in the statute, they claim, includes Web-based services and unequal access to those services is prohibited.

On the other hand, proponents of restricting Title III's coverage cite to the legislative history of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act as evidence that Congress did not intend the ADA to apply to private Internet sites. Proponents to restrict Title III coverage argue that Congress's failure to address the Internet in the ADA was intentional and that, even assuming Congress originally neglected a reference to the Internet by mistake or lacked foresight in 1990 with respect to the Internet's future importance, Congress could have added language to clarify its intent to cover Web sites in the recently adopted ADA Amendments Act ("ADAAA"). The ADAAA was signed into law by the President on September 25, 2008, and became effective January 1, 2009; but it does not address the ADA's applicability to the Internet. In stark contrast, over recent years, Congress specifically has amended the Rehabilitation Act to require that federal government Web sites be made accessible to the blind. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(d). Therefore, proponents of the ADA's inapplicability to the Internet argue that Congress has clearly refrained from imposing accessibility requirements on privately owned Web sites under Title III.

In addition to the lack of clarity from Congress, there is also a lack of case law and authority examining Internet accessibility issues and that which exists remains inconclusive and contradictory. The case law analysis starts with one of the most recent class actions on the subject. In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006), the District Court for the Northern District of California denied, in part, retailer Target's motion to dismiss the allegations that it violated Title III of the ADA and California state law because the Web site that it operated, Target.com, was inaccessible to the blind.

Target argued that the ADA and state law cover access to only physical spaces, such as Target's brick-and-mortar stores, and that because Target.com is not a physical space and thus not a "place of public accommodation," Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim under these laws. Target also argued that even if Target.com provides some services associated with Target's stores, there was not a sufficient "nexus" between the services on the Web site and the brick-and-mortar stores to state a claim. Target also contended that Plaintiffs were not denied physical access to the Target stores where they were provided equal services to those on the Web site and that Target need not modify its Web site so long as it provided the information contained therein in some other format, such as by telephone or at the stores.

The district court disagreed with Target. The court found that even though, under Ninth Circuit law, a "place of public accommodation" is a physical place, a plaintiff alleging unequal access to a "service" of the place can allege that there is a sufficient "nexus" between the challenged service and the place of public accommodation to state a claim. See 452 F. Supp. 2d at 952-53 (citing Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F. 3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that places of public accommodation are "actual, physical places.")). The court also concluded that "it was clear from the face of the complaint" that many of the benefits and privileges of the Web site were services of the Target stores and that the challenged services were "heavily integrated with the brick-and-mortar stores." Id. at 954-55.

Moreover, the court found that "services" protected under the ADA were not limited to those on the premises of the public accommodation and stated: "[t]he statute applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation." Id. at 953. Thus, the court held that the Plaintiffs need not be denied physical access to the Target stores to state a claim as "it is clear that the purpose of the statute is broader than mere physical access." Id. at 954. (Notably, the court made this assertion after stating that the legislative history of the ADA was "inconclusive" on the issue of the regulation of private Web sites. Id. at 952 n.2.) Finally, the court responded to Target's argument that it need not modify its Web site because there were other formats by which it could provide the services, by finding that "the flexibility to provide reasonable accommodation is an affirmative defense and not an appropriate basis upon which to dismiss the action." Id. at 956.

Although Target's major arguments for dismissal were rejected by the court, it is important to note the court's emphasis on the "nexus" required between the services on the Web site and Target's brick-and-mortar stores. The court ultimately held that, "to the extent that Plaintiffs allege that the inaccessibility of Target.com impedes the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores," they state a claim and the motion to dismiss is denied. Id. at 956. However, the court also found to the extent that Target.com offers information and services "unconnected to Target stores" and "which do not affect the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores," Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Title III. Id. The distinction by the court suggests that the ADA would not apply to all components or services of the Web site if, indeed, they were not integrated with the services of Target's brick-and-mortar stores.

Following this decision, in 2007, Plaintiffs moved for class certification of a nationwide ADA class and of a separate California subclass. See National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., No. 06-01802 (MHP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30513 (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2007). The court again recognized a "nexus" requirement between the use of the Web site and the use of the Target stores for the purposes of an ADA violation and consequently narrowed the nationwide class to: legally blind individuals who have attempted to access Target.com and "as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores."2 Id. at *12.

Prior to any further litigation, the parties reached settlement on August 27, 2008. As a part of the settlement agreement, Target will: (i) establish a $6 million fund from which members of the California settlement class can make claims; (ii) complete the steps necessary to make its Web site accessible to the blind; (iii) allow the National Federation of the Blind ("NFB") to certify the Target Web site through its Nonvisual Accessibility Web Certification program; (iv) pay the NFB to train all employees of Target who work on the company's Web site; and (v) pay the NFB attorney's fees and costs to be determined in mediation. (For more information about the terms of the settlement, please visit www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com.)

The Target case illustrates the need to resolve how the ADA and Title III specifically apply to the Internet. Because the Target case arose in the Ninth Circuit, which defines "place of public accommodation" as a physical place, Plaintiffs could not allege that Target.com was a "place of public accommodation." However, other circuits have suggested that a "place of public accommodation" may have a more expansive meaning that includes private Web sites and the Internet. The Seventh Circuit, for example, has noted, in dicta, that a "place of public accommodation" encompassed facilities open to the public in both physical and electronic space, including Web sites. See Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1999). In one of the earliest cases, the First Circuit also held that "public accommodations" encompassed more than actual physical structures and, therefore, included defendant insurance company's provision of non-tangible benefits or services, such as health benefit plans, purchased over the telephone or by mail. See Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Automotive Wholesalers Assoc. of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 19-20 (1st Cir. 1994). Finally, the Eleventh Circuit in Rendon v. Valleycrest Prod., Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (11th Cir. 2002), held that the telephone process for selecting contestants for the show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" fell under the purview of Title III because it constituted a privilege provided by the studio where the show was filmed and the studio was a physical "place of public accommodation."

Notwithstanding the expansive view expressed in these cases, it appears that in most jurisdictions, as in the Target case, a plaintiff must allege some kind of connection between a Web site and a physical place of public accommodation to state a claim under Title III. The few courts that have been squarely faced with the question as to whether a Web site constitutes a "place of public accommodation" have found that it does not. In Access Now Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1318 (S.D. Fl. 2002), Plaintiffs, Access Now (a disability advocacy group) and a blind individual, asserted that Southwest Airline's Web site – separate and apart from any of its physical facilities – was inaccessible to blind persons and in violation of Title III. The District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint, holding that it was the role of Congress, and not the court, to expand the ADA's definition of "public accommodation" beyond physical, concrete structures, to include "virtual" places of public accommodation such as the Web site. See id. at 1321.3 Likewise, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, albeit in dicta, has found that online Internet chat rooms cannot be construed as "places of public accommodation" because "the logic of the statute and the weight of authority" indicate that they must be physical facilities. See Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532, 543-44 (E.D. Va. 2003), aff'd, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5495 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2004).

Moreover, several cases including those discussed in the Target opinion illustrate that, irrespective of whether Title III's coverage is limited to physical spaces or facilities, a plaintiff's Title III claim regarding Internet services will fail unless the plaintiff demonstrates a rather strong "nexus" between the Web site and a physical place of public accommodation. In Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F. 3d 601, 612-13 (3d Cir. 1998), for example, the Third Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to allege a nexus between the challenged insurance benefits and a physical place of public accommodation. Although the office of the insurer was a place of public accommodation, the challenged insurance benefits were offered by defendant Schering, plaintiff's employer; a sufficient nexus between the benefits and the insurer's office did not exist to hold Schering liable because the office, the place of public accommodation, did not offer the benefits to plaintiff. See id. Further, in Stoutenborough v. National Football League, 59 F.3d 580, 583-84 (6th Cir. 1995), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Title III claim because the challenged service, the live telecast of a football game, was not offered by, or sufficiently linked to, a place of public accommodation, the stadium; instead, the telecast was offered by the National Football League, which was merely a lessor of the public stadium.

While there remains no definite answer from the courts or Congress on whether the ADA applies to the Internet, inaccessible Web sites have been, and will continue to be, the target of lawsuits. In addition to the cases already discussed, the National Federation of the Blind sued America Online ("AOL") in federal court prior to its suit of Target, alleging that AOL's service was inaccessible to the blind in violation of Title III. The suit was settled without any substantive ruling in July 2000 with AOL agreeing to make all of its sites compatible with screen reader technology. In 2004, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced settlements with two major travel Web sites, Ramda.com and Priceline.com, who agreed to implement a variety of accessibility standards to permit visually impaired users to utilize screen reader software on the sites. Over the past two years, Access Now (the same group that sued Southwest Airline) also sued bookseller Barnes & Noble and retailer Claire's Stores for maintaining Web sites that allegedly violated the ADA. In fact, as recently as September 26, 2008, the National Federation of the Blind and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a cooperative agreement with Apple, Inc. to make Apple's iTunes software, iTunes Store, and iTunes U more accessible to the blind. Apple also agreed to contribute $250,000 to the Massachusetts Commission for the blind.

The lesson to be taken away from the Target case and others is that litigation under Title III can have an unpredictable outcome and can be costly. Even though Title III limits damages to declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney's fees, depending on the state in which the lawsuit is filed, state laws may allow for monetary damages causing expensive settlements or awards. In some cases, modification of a Web site to comply with accessibility standards should be considered. Making a Web site accessible to all including disabled individuals has the potential benefit, among others, of attracting more patrons, clients, and even job applicants or employees. Human Resources professionals of companies covered by Title III that operate private Web sites should examine, in conjunction with counsel, whether modification to their Web site is a viable option. As companies know well, the Internet is no longer the wave of the future but the wave of the present; and, one way or another, the law will eventually catch up.


1. The Department of Justice issued an opinion letter in 1996, however, in which it concluded that "covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods or services must be prepared to offer these communications through accessible means as well." See Letter from Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin, Sept. 9, 1996, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/cltr204.txt (last accessed October 1, 2008).

2. Notably, the court deferred ruling on the class certification of the California subclass and thereafter, in a separate decision, determined that Plaintiffs' subclass definition of "all legally blind individuals in California who have attempted to access Target.com" was appropriate because, unlike the ADA, California state law does not require a "nexus" to the physical shores to be shown. See National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., No. 06-1802 (MHP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73547, at *26-35 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007).

3. Subsequently, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal of this decision, finding that Plaintiffs had not appropriately appealed from the court's determination that the airline's website was not a "place of public accommodation" under Title III, but rather, their appellate brief, for the first time, argued that the airline as a whole was a place of public accommodation because it operated a "travel service," and that it had violated Title III because of the website's connection to the airline's "travel service." See Access Now Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004).


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions