RESPONSE TO RELIEF REQUESTED
Target denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any substantive or procedural remedy or relief, including the relief and certification requested in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the “Relief Requested” portion of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Target further denies that Plaintiffs, or any of them, have suffered or incurred any injury or damage in this matter.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Without admitting or acknowledging that Target bears any burden of proof as to any of them, Target asserts the following affirmative defenses. Target intends to rely upon any additional defenses that become available or apparent during pretrial proceedings in this action and hereby reserves the right to amend this Answer in order to assert all such further defenses.
First Affirmative Defense
(Failure to State a Claim)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
(Commerce Clause)
As an affirmative defense to the First and Second Causes of Action in the Complaint, Target alleges that any application of California law to the website located at www.target.com violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Third Affirmative Defense
(Good Faith Conformity with Applicable Standards)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that it acted in good faith and/or its conduct was in conformity with all applicable statutes, governmental regulations, and industry standards existing at the time of such conduct.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
(Due Process – Vagueness)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that, to the extent federal or state statutes are applied in this action to mandate the manner in which Target must program or design its website, the statutes are unconstitutionally vague and
application of the statutes in this action would therefore violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
(Due Process – Damages)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that the claims for damages are so disproportionate to the injuries, if any, suffered as to violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
(Rule of Lenity)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the rule of lenity.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
(No Modification or Alteration Required)
As an affirmative defense to the First and Second Causes of Action in the Complaint, Target alleges that California law does not require Target to modify or alter its website.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
(No Intentional Discrimination)
As an affirmative defense to the First Cause of Action in the Complaint, Target alleges that it has not engaged in intentional discrimination with respect to the accessibility of its website.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
(No Denial of Physical Access)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that it has not denied Plaintiffs, or any blind persons, physical access to the goods and services of Target’s retail stores.
Tenth Affirmative Defense
(Auxiliary Aids and Services – Effective Communication)
As an affirmative defense to each and every claim in the Complaint, Target alleges that, b the extent Target.com allegedly does not effectively communicate information regarding goods and services through its website to Plaintiffs, or to any blind persons, effective communication is provided via reasonable and appropriate alternative means.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense
(No Denial of Access to Service of Place of Public Accommodation)