I disagree with this statement. The person in question is not limited to purchaseing target products. They can visit a store or phone in orders. There are other avenues for them to make the products Target carries available to them. Not be able to use the website has nothing to do with being able to access the goods or services they have, unless that is the only place they are available, in this case though they are available other places then on a website.
I also argue the point about them not having access to the site. They do have access, if they go to the URL they will arrive at a webpage. At that point they have accessed the site. Just because the site doesn't function well with screen scrapers that read out content doesn't mean that there is no access available to them. It just means their site doesn't functional well with screen readers.
On a simliar note, I have been to many websites that only work in IE, would I be able to argue that one of these sites prevents me from accessing it because it won't work in Firefox? Same kind of thing, firefox is a program for me to acess websites, much like a screen reader is a program for someone to access a website. They are argueing since their website reader doesn't work for that website that they have some course of legal action.
[edited by: Demaestro at 5:03 pm (utc) on Sep. 8, 2006]