NFB v Target: An Early ADA Web-Accessibility Class Action and Its Lessons

National Federation of the Blind v Target Corporation is an important early US ecommerce-accessibility case. Its motion-to-dismiss and class-certification history, followed by a 2008 settlement with a $6 million class fund and accessibility commitments, is useful context. It is not a universal template for later cases, and this article is not legal advice.

The procedural history

The National Federation of the Blind, the country's largest blind-advocacy membership organization, has long pursued litigation as a strategy when other channels fail. By 2006 NFB members had documented for several years that target.com was not accessible to screen-reader users. The site lacked alt text on product images, did not expose form labels to assistive technology, did not handle keyboard-only navigation, and did not announce dynamic content updates.

NFB and three individual plaintiffs filed suit in February 2006 in the Northern District of California against Target Corporation. The complaint alleged violations of:

• Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (federal).
• The California Unruh Civil Rights Act (state).
• The California Disabled Persons Act (state).

Target moved to dismiss on multiple theories, including the argument that target.com was not a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of ADA Title III. In September 2006 Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denied the motion to dismiss in significant part. The court held that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under ADA Title III to the extent that the website inaccessibility prevented access to the goods and services of Target's physical stores. The state-law claims survived in full.

The court certified a nationwide class for the ADA claim and a California subclass for the state-law claims in October 2007. Class certification — even though it was based on the trial court's ruling rather than an appellate decision — signaled to the plaintiff bar that ADA Title III website cases could survive past the motion-to-dismiss stage and proceed to discovery.

The parties entered into settlement negotiations in 2008 and announced terms in August of that year.

The settlement terms

The settlement had three substantive components:

1. Monetary relief

Target paid $6 million into a settlement fund for class members. Individual class members who had attempted to use target.com between February 2003 and the settlement date were eligible for compensation from the fund. Attorneys' fees were paid separately.

2. Technical compliance — the "NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Web Certification"

Target agreed that target.com would meet the technical accessibility standard then maintained by the NFB (now superseded by industry adoption of WCAG). The standard required, among other things:

• Alt text on every meaningful image.
• Programmatic labels on every form field.
• Keyboard operability for every interactive element.
• Skip-navigation links allowing screen-reader users to bypass repetitive navigation.
• Heading-structure semantic markup so screen readers could navigate the page hierarchy.

These items remain practical areas to include in a current storefront accessibility review.

3. Ongoing monitoring and reporting

Target agreed to engage independent third-party accessibility consultants on an ongoing basis to verify the site's continued compliance, and to submit periodic compliance reports during the settlement's term. Public reports of compliance status were also required.

Why the case still matters

NFB v Target predated Robles by eleven years and predated WCAG 2.0's formal adoption by two. But it did three things that still shape the legal landscape:

1. The court certified classes in this case. That procedural result was based on the pleaded claims, record, and applicable law; it does not mean another ecommerce case will be certified.
2. The settlement had a documented monetary component. The $6 million fund describes this agreement and should not be used as a benchmark for another claim.
3. Federal and California claims were pleaded together. Available claims, standing, damages, defenses, and remedies depend on current law and case-specific facts. Qualified counsel should assess them.

What Shopify merchants should take from NFB v Target

1. Treat customer barriers as operational issues. Test product discovery, variants, cart, account, and checkout-related handoffs with keyboard and assistive technology.
2. Keep factual remediation records. Preserve scan scope, manual-test notes, approvals, diffs, and post-change checks without presenting a tool log as proof of legal compliance.
3. Review familiar technical patterns. Text alternatives, form labels, keyboard operability, bypass mechanisms, and semantic structure remain useful review areas, while complete conformance also requires manual evaluation.
4. Do not infer legal exposure from company size or this settlement. If a complaint or demand arrives, preserve relevant evidence and obtain advice from qualified counsel in the applicable jurisdiction.

Further reading

• National Federation of the Blind: Target case archive
• Northern District of California court records, NFB v Target
• California Unruh Civil Rights Act — text
• AccessComply: Robles v Domino's deep-dive
• AccessComply: Gil v Winn-Dixie Eleventh Circuit reversal
• AccessComply: How to respond to an ADA demand letter