Comments on: Mozilla, Accessibility, and Target http://www.phillystandards.org/blog/2006/10/20/mozilla-accessibility-and-target/ Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:21:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Mozilla, Accessibility, and Target by: Alex P http://www.phillystandards.org/blog/2006/10/20/mozilla-accessibility-and-target/#comment-3002 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:20:52 +0000 http://www.phillystandards.org/blog/2006/10/20/mozilla-accessibility-and-target/#comment-3002 Web Standards are not important. Web Standards are not important.

]]> Comment on Mozilla, Accessibility, and Target by: Marty DeAngelo http://www.phillystandards.org/blog/2006/10/20/mozilla-accessibility-and-target/#comment-2320 Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:20:52 +0000 http://www.phillystandards.org/blog/2006/10/20/mozilla-accessibility-and-target/#comment-2320 Interestingly, although the Target claim tried to show violation of the <strong>Commerce Clause</strong>, in reality the Commerce Clause upholds the ADA and related laws. According to a number of rulings (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause" title="Commerce Clause on Wikipedia" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>), while the transaction may be housed in a single state, the actions of interstate commerce make it beholden to Federal Law. So, unless Target was manufacturing, transporting and selling all within the same state - which theoretically would have to be the same state that the website was being hosted - they are subject to interstate commerce. I don't know how strong that argument is, paticularly in light of later cases, but it's an interesting precedent. Interestingly, although the Target claim tried to show violation of the Commerce Clause, in reality the Commerce Clause upholds the ADA and related laws. According to a number of rulings (see Wikipedia), while the transaction may be housed in a single state, the actions of interstate commerce make it beholden to Federal Law.

So, unless Target was manufacturing, transporting and selling all within the same state - which theoretically would have to be the same state that the website was being hosted - they are subject to interstate commerce.

I don't know how strong that argument is, paticularly in light of later cases, but it's an interesting precedent.

]]>