Bad attitude, Mr. Eftimie. Even in spite of your “pro accessibility” disclaimer. I hope you DON’T have a store. Or, if you do, please tell us where it is, so we can be sure NOT to shop there.

Lets take a real world type of example.
I have a small store, and i only have some steep stairs leading to it. That would result in disabled persons just shopping at the next store that has a ramp. So i’m losing some customers. Why should this be a legal concern?! If i don’t care about my business, that should be my problem. I haven’t forced anyone in a wheelchair to climb those stairs.

This should be applicable to sites. (maybe except government official sites where they would need to allow access to every citizen)

But why a lawsuit? Just go and buy from another site!

The court held: “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of the ADA’s prohibition against discrimination in the enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges, is that whatever goods or services the place provides, it cannot discriminate on the basis of disability in providing enjoyment of those goods and services.”

Hopefully, that will be upheld throughout, and can either empower other worldwide advocacy groups to press for access, or motivate companies to comply.

And it’s a tactic I find particularly odious when they’re consciously acting to keep users with disabilities out.

Doubly odious because it’s just not that hard to provide the accessibility… so the cost of conformance really isn’t that high. I heard a NPR story this week about case, and it quoted the NFB (or maybe it was the individual who first filed the suit) as saying that Wal-Mart’s site offers excellent accessibility (even with 30+ validation errors on the homepage — it appears to be good enough). If they can do it, there’s no defensible reason whatsoever that Target can offer.