In her ruling, Patel said the ADA "statute applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of the statute."

She said that it is clear from the complaint that many of the benefits and privileges of the Web site are services of the Target stores. "...[T]he challenged service [Web site] here is heavily integrated with the brick-and-mortar stores and operates in many ways as a gateway to the stores," Patel said.

Patel upheld the plaintiffs' claim under the ADA in the instances where the inaccessibility of Target.com impedes the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores. But she dismissed the portion of the plaintiffs' claim that pertained to goods and services offered on Target.com that are not connected to the company's physical stores.

In an end note, the judge said, "The Web site is a means to gain access to the store and it is ironic that Target, through its merchandising efforts on the one hand, seeks to reach greater numbers of customers and enlarge its consumer-base, while on the other hand it seeks to escape the requirements of the ADA. A broader application of the ADA to the Web site may be appropriate if upon further discovery it is disclosed that the store and Web site are part of an integrated effort."