Target filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the laws in question don't apply to Web sites because they aren't "physical" places of public accommodation. The retailer further claimed that applying California statutes to its Web site, which is accessible to consumers nationwide, would violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The NFB filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order Target to make its Web site accessible promptly. The judge denied that motion, however, because it would be premature for the court to rule on an injunction, since there are sufficient questions raised with respect to whether the average blind person is able to access Target's Web site.

"While disappointed the lawsuit was not entirely dismissed, Target is pleased with the court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction," the retailer said in a statement e-mailed to Computerworld. "We believe our Web site complies with all applicable laws and are committed to vigorously defending this case. We will continue to implement technology that increases the usability of our Web site for all our guests, including those with disabilities."

Mazen Basrawi, a lawyer at Berkeley, Calif.-based Disability Rights Advocates, a co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said: "This is groundbreaking. No court has yet ruled directly that the ADA applies to Web sites, which she [Judge Marilyn Hall Patel] has clearly done in this opinion. We hope that it [this case] is going to encourage businesses to include accessibility in their Web development."

Basrawi said the case can be cited in future litigation, and if Patel publishes the decision, it will carry even more force. "She has really clarified the law," he said.