Talk:National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp./Archive 1

Archive 1

Update

I am taggging this article as {{update}} because I think NFB settled this lawsuit, but I could be wrong. I believe this lawsuit was settled in March through an agreement between NFB and Amazon, but I'm interested in a source that could verify this. Tuxide 05:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the court certified a plaintiff class on 28 Sept 2007, so as of that date the suit was still proceeding. John M Baker 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm...OK but I still remember NFB and Amazon going through some sort of talks, but I just don't remember exactly what it was. Either way, it is relevant to the subject and it should be in here if it was important. It is not Target Corporation's software on its own website, but Amazon's. Tuxide (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This lawsuit was finally settled [www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com] August 27, 2008. Target was instructed by the court to set aside $6 Million to be drawn down against by participants in the class action lawsuit. The court also named Deque Systems product called Worldspace to be used as the tool to monitor Target's compliance(see court documents) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelandmusic (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not True, The Closure If No Appeal Stated on the site you linked was March 9, 2009, fortuanatly that was over a week ago so can no take care of this article and get it up-to-date! I will also re-record the spoken version.

I've made some pretty major changes to the article to make its POV more neutral, etc.

Anseljh (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting rid of the 2 warning tabs at the top of the article, because first is outmoded (with the settlement) and I don't see much PR that the 2nd warns of. If you disagree, please reinsert, as I just used the article today, and don't plan to watch it.Bellagio99 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Section titles

I did the capitalization of the section titles but I still think they should be more condensed if anyone has any ideas about what to call them. Cleanelephant (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article reads like a news release from the plaintiffs' firm. The lawsuit generated much criticism (from Walter Olson, among others), none of which has made its way into the article, in violation of NPOV. THF (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we including the analysis of some random nut ball in every article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.39.150 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705103922/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Misleading claim

The article currently states:

"According to the Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) organization, the case "established the first precedent in the country regarding website accessibility for commercial websites. The court ruled that commercial websites such as Target.com are required to be accessible under the ADA and state laws."

While technically true, (commercial is indeed a subset of all) the above implies that noncommercial websites are not required to be accessible under the ADA. The court never said that, and the wording of the law and prior case law regarding physical "places" say that the ADA applies to "any place of public accommodation", not just commercial places of public accommodation.

"Title 42 § 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations(a): General rule: No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation... It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity."[1]

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

New information

I added some information about the two other plaintiffs on the case, as well as about the extent of the court's ruling on websites that are linked to physical space. I also added a few more references to go with those. Ckirk9 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Alas, your claim about the extent of the court's ruling was original research that is not supported by the source you yourself provided.

The source says "The prevailing doctrinal approach to Internet accessibility seeks to treat websites as metaphorical 'places' subject to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)"

This is pretty much the opposite of your claim that "The court’s decision standardized that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 would only relate to the accessibility of the Internet and/or websites when they are tethered to a “place.” As of the 2006 ruling, if an online space does not dually[sic] reside in a physical one, they would not be required to comply by these standards due to the scope of the ruling and the language of Title III."

Your claim about the "language of Title III" was especially egregious. The actual language is "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 13 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naquach, Reiharper.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)