National Federation of the Blind v. Target (2006)
By: Eowyn Dautrich
Overview:
National Federation of the Blind v. Target (2006) is a Federal case brought against retailer Target, in which the plaintiffs, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Bruce Sexton, and all those similarly situated, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on allegations that Target’s website was inaccessible to individuals who are blind in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Act, and California’s Disabled Persons Act. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Act, and California’s Disabled Persons Act only covered access to physical spaces and therefore did not extend to websites. The primary issue of this case is whether a public place of accommodation encompasses facilities open to the public in both physical and electronic space, including websites, under the nexus doctrine.
Summary:
The National Federation of the Blind and three plaintiffs challenged Target’s inaccessible website, which prevented blind individuals from properly accessing Target’s goods and services. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) states, “no individuals shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services” [2]. Additionally, California’s Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act prohibit discrimination by business establishments and require disabled individuals to receive full and equal access to services and facilities, as well as full and equal access to public spaces and facilities [2].
On February 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an action in the California Superior Court for Alameda County. In response, the defendant removed the case to federal court on March 9, 2006, moving to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The defendant argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 12182 (“ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 51 (“Unruh Act”), and the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 54.1 (“DPA”), only covered physical spaces, with no mention of nonphysical spaces such as the internet. Since Target.com is not a physical space, the defendant contends that these laws are not applicable, additionally stating that applying these state laws to the internet would violate the dormant commerce clause, which forbids a state from regulating commerce “that takes place outside of the States borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the state” [2].
Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, the court considered Target’s motion to dismiss. This can only be granted by the court if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. Because the plaintiff could not demonstrate any relevant facts clearly favoring that Target.com was inaccessible to the blind, the court did not reach grounds for denial. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion in part.
Regarding the plaintiffs’ ADA claim, the defendant’s argument focused on Title III of the ADA, which prevents discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and asserted that the nexus theory applies only to the denial of physical access. However, the court noted that ADA encompasses the goods and services a place of the public offers, not limited to only physical spaces. The court found that the plaintiffs did state a claim under the ADA on the basis that Target.com inaccessibility impedes the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores. However, the defendants motion to dismiss a portion of the ADA claim related to services unconnected to Target stores was granted by the court.
For the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which states that individuals with disabilities are “entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” the defendant had three separate reasons for dismissing plaintiff’s claims. One reason stated that Target.com is not a business establishment, which was rejected by the court. Overall, the courts ultimately agreed with the plaintiff’s claim under the ADA, noting a violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Similarly, a violation of the Disabled Persons Act is a violation of the ADA, as noted by the court. The court did not need to address the defendant's arguments that the Disabled Persons Act only applies to physical places.
In contrast to the defendants argument regarding the commerce clause, several state and federal courts have held that states may regulate the internet without violating the commerce clause. Additionally, the court noted that Target could choose to design a separate site for California and that it is technically feasible to tailor a website based on the location of the user. Thus, the court found that it was premature to determine whether the application of California’s Unruh Act and Disabled Person’s Act to Target’s national website would violate the commerce clause.
The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction sought to require Target to make its website accessible to blind individuals while the case was ongoing. The defendant was correct in asserting that the relevant facts did not clearly demonstrate that Target.com was inaccessible to blind individuals. The plaintiffs could not make this showing, and thus their motion was denied without prejudice. The court noted that additional discovery was required to determine whether the average blind person could access Target’s website. After full discovery had been conducted, the plaintiffs were at liberty to move for a permanent injunction.
Once the court approved the final settlement, both parties reached a settlement of 6 million dollars, including attorney fees, and Target committed to ongoing accessibility [3].
Impact:
The decision established by the court set the first precedent for website accessibility in the country by ruling that commercial websites like Target must be accessible under the ADA and state laws. The court held that there was a “nexus” between Target.com and the physical locations of Target stores, bringing the website within the coverage of Title III of the ADA. Because the website fell under Title III of the ADA, inaccessible website features constituted discrimination in access to the services of a place of public accommodation. Plus, both the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act provided stronger protections than federal law. As a result, retail websites have ADA obligations, and accessible technology is now not optional.
Court Documents:
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
Citations:
[1] Disability Rights Advocates. “National Federation of the Blind (NFB), et al. v. Target Corporation.” Disability Rights Advocates,
https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-nfb-et-al-v-target-corporation/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2026.
[2] National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. 452 F. Supp. 2d 946. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 6 Sept. 2006. vLex,
[3] World Standards Council. “NFB v. Target Corporation.” World Standards Council, https://wsc.us.org/case-target. Accessed 8 Sept. 2026.
