A "bricks-and-mortar" store is a visual medium too, haven't you noticed all the signs with the prices on them? That doesn't mean that the company doesn't need to respect clear legislation regarding accessibility in their store. Why should the same not be true for a website by the same company? Why shouldn't a company be made responsible for failing to make a minimum of effort to make their website accessible to blind users?
The company failed to add alternative text descriptions for product images, and preferred to go to court rather than take a responsible approach. The settlement is largely in their favour, in my opinion, as there is no admission of any violations.