Yeah, that’s what my previous comment was about. The heading of the NFB press release states, “precedent establishes that retailers must make their websites accessible to the blind under the ADA” and this is more misleading and pretty much a flat out lie, in my opinion.”

It’s a press release. The purpose of press release — a form of advertising — is to “sell” one’s virtues. From that perspective, which is realistic, it isn’t a lie. Overstatement? Isn’t that the same as “advertising”?

“I contacted the NFB contact and he says they stand by it. From Joe’s post, it looks like a bunch of legal spin is being applied to this on both sides.”

“I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you, to see legal ‘spin’ going on in the middle of the legal community!”

Yeah, that’s what my previous comment was about. The heading of the NFB press release states, “precedent establishes that retailers must make their websites accessible to the blind under the ADA” and this is more misleading and pretty much a flat out lie, in my opinion. I contacted the NFB contact and he says they stand by it. From Joe’s post, it looks like a bunch of legal spin is being applied to this on both sides.

It was the title that’s misleading, so I changed it.

the nondisclosure agreement I entered into with Target.

So I take it he has been hired as an expert witness for the defense along with the three skilled screen reader users.

Which is good that Target are finally taking this matter seriously.

NFB didn’t win the case and might lose it. All that happened was that a motion to dismiss the whole thing failed.
The ADA has not been definitively ruled to include Web sites, let alone commercial Web sites.
Target, after submitting a seriously half-arsed expert-witness assessment, managed to find several screen-reader users who could operate the site just fine. It does indeed seem open to dispute that the site is inaccessible to blind people.