VI. Conclusion

Since its enactment, courts have interpreted Title III to cover services having a nexus to a place of public accommodation.145 If a service prevents disabled individuals from taking advantage of the privileges or equal enjoyment of the place of public accommodation, then there is a nexus. The nexus standard has enabled courts to apply Title III to services clearly linked to a statutory “public accommodation,”146 even though the challenged services are not directly offered by the public accommodation.147

Prior to Target, no court had allowed an inaccessibility claim against a business's website under Title III.148 However, the Ninth Circuit found that the connection between Target's website and stores comprised a nexus necessary for a Title III claim.149 Although the court's decision was based on a very specific set of facts, the Target decision had the effect of creating a nexus-spectrum for Title III lawsuits involving websites. On one end of the spectrum is the Ninth Circuit stating a website with heavily-integrated services connected to the equal enjoyment of services of a place of public accommodation creates a nexus and viable Title III claim against a website.150 On the other end of the spectrum is the Eleventh Circuit's assertion that if there is no place of public accommodation, there is no nexus, and a Title III claim against the website is not viable.151 By not stating the minimum connection or integration required to find the necessary nexus between a website and public accommodation for Title III to apply, Target provides an unclear standard in a time when Title III litigation against websites appears to be gaining momentum.

In an effort to avoid the confusion that businesses and other Title III places of public accommodation may face in the wake of Target, Congress should amend the language of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) to address the issue of websites as places of public accommodation. Although Congress addressed this issue in 2000, the Internet has continued to evolve since that time, and the increased growth in website related Title III claims puts a number of small businesses at risk for litigation because there is no clear rule. By adding language to Title III to exclude websites explicitly, to broaden its application to e-commerce-only retailers and websites affiliated with a place of public accommodation, or to apply to all business websites, Congress will provide a clear answer to the question remaining after Target: to which websites does Title III apply?