000701	03.wma
000000	Clifford R. Michel:  Okay, so we have an overview of the case leading up to cases which have directly addressed the ADA and its impact on the Internet.
000011	So Mark, would you talk to us please about the recent case, the National Federation of the Blind against Target, and what's so novel about this case?
000021	Mark Howitson:  Sure, thanks.
000022	So the National Federation of the Blind versus Target case is interesting for lots of reasons.
000027	One of them is that up until that case if you'd have called me or another person who practiced this kind of law,
000035	they would have said that in the Ninth Circuit, cyberspace is not a place.
000039	So when this case came out, let's just say a lot of us were surprised.
000043	So here are the facts of the case.
000045	What happened in the National Federal of the Blind versus Target is an individual sued Target, presumably after sending a letter expressing some problems.
000054	On the basis that he was unable to use the target.com website.
000059	Now the Target we're talking about is the national retailer that has about 14,000 stores, about 205 of which are in California.
000106	Anyway, this individual said that he was unable to use the target.com website and, in particular, he claimed that the target.com website was, in part,
000115	allowed him to access facilities of the store and, in particular, what he was talking about is finding out store hours and locations,
000123	figuring out how to refill a prescription or order photo prints, that sort of thing.
000128	So his allegation was simply that the target.com website was not structured in such a way that a person who was visually impaired could still use the site
000138	and then could gain access to the Target store.
000141	So his claim is that it would have been simple and relatively inexpensive for Target to amend or change or fix, however you want to call it,
000150	its website so that an individual who was visually impaired could employ something like a screen reader, for instance,
000157	that would have turned the text of the website into Braille and other interfaces, so that person who's visually impaired could actually use the website.
000205	So essentially, those were the basic facts, that he claimed he tried and couldn't get access to the target.com website
000211	and that it would have been easy for them to make an accommodation so that he could access the Target stores through the target.com website.
000218	Clifford R. Michel:  Well, what was the position taken by Target in the case?
000222	Mark Howitson:  Target took the position that cyberspace or, in particular, the target.com website, was not a place of public accommodation.
000231	Their argument was that, and even Patel in her opinion in this particular matter, acknowledges that prior to this the Ninth Circuit had essentially taken
000240	the position that physical location was required to be considered a place of public accommodation.
000246	And like some of the law that Amira just mentioned, that was consistent with some of the other opinions of other Circuits,
000253	that is that you had to have a place in order to be a place of public accommodation, and that sort of made sense.
000258	So walking into the case, we all thought, well this is a no-brainer, this is simple, this is going to be a case in favor of the defendant.
000306	The defendant's going to be right, that the website, target.com, is not a place of public accommodation so, therefore,
000312	they would have to make no accommodation to provide, so it would be easier for a person who's visually impaired or any other impairment to gain access to that website.
000321	So those are the facts and that was Target's position.
000326	Of course, the plaintiff argued, particularly Mr. Sexton argued, that it, in fact, was a place of public accommodation for a variety of reasons
000333	and that the accommodation they were seeking could be easily provided for relatively little cost.
000342	Clifford R. Michel:  So how did the judge rule?
000343	Mark Howitson:  So the ruling was this:  The judge ruled, and it was interesting, the judge made mention of some of the prior case that Amira just mentioned.
000351	But basically the bottom line, the judge ruled that, in act, cyberspace was a place and in this case she relied very much on the Rendon case,
000401	which is Amira just talked about, and that was the who wants to be in their case.
000406	And she reasoned essentially, that because the target.com website facilitated the use of the bricks and mortar Target stores, that, therefore,
000416	the target.com website had to be made so that a person who was visually impaired could access that site.
000425	Essentially what we're leading up to here is a request by the plaintiff for injunctive relief to force Target to modify their site
000434	so a person who's visually impaired can interact with it.
000437	And essentially the judge ruled that there is no legal basis that would prohibit that order.
000442	So presumably what's going to happen next in the case is they're going to bring a motion for preliminary injunction
000448	and ask the court to force Target to accommodate by modifying the site.
000454	So the court rules simply that, in fact, cyberspace was a space and the key was because it's connected between the target.com website and the bricks and mortar site,
000502	there is a connection and, therefore, it is a place of public accommodation.
000505	Clifford R. Michel:  So Mark, having read the literature concerning this case, 
000510	Target ever indicate a willingness to voluntarily modify their website to accommodate the visually impaired?
000517	Mark Howitson:  Well, the case doesn't make mention one way or the other about it.
000521	Clifford R. Michel:  What about the commentary on it?
000522	Mark Howitson:  Well commentary, certainly a number of people have expressed some surprise, let's put it that way, that this case ever saw the light of a courthouse.
000532	Some people are surprised that Target would say no to a request to modify the website.
000537	Now we don't know.
000538	The case is really at this point early in it's stage.
000540	We don't know how much it really truly would have cost Target to modify its website in order to make it so that people who are visually impaired could use it.
000548	And we don't know if, in fact, the National Federation of the Blind did send a letter to Target in advance.
000554	We believe that they did and we believe that based on the fact that I represent a number of clients who've received that letter
000601	from the National Federation of the Blind.
000602	And so we're familiar with the desire by groups like the National Federation of the Blind and others to reach out and say to large national retailers and others, hey,
000615	you need to be paying attention to the Americans with Disabilities Act when it comes to your website.
000620	And, frankly, those letters aren't going out just to retailers.
000625	They're going out to just about anybody who operates a website on the Internet and that invites people to come and buy things or to purchases services of any kind.
000634	So the bottom line, the commentary really here is there is some surprise that this case ever was filed.
000641	Typically people in a Target position, the position of Target here, might have done a few things to prevent there from ever being a lawsuit.
000649	But we don't really don't know that happened exactly and it may be that the National Federal of the Blind was looking for a big target, no pun intended,
000656	and chose Target on purpose because they wanted to get the headline.
000659	We don't know.
000700