Research Question It is evident in today's technologically evolving marketplace that more and more commerce is being transacted online; however, this particular channel poses more challenges for the disabled community due to the inaccessibility of so many retail websites. To obtain perspectives from this population, a sample of blind and vision impaired consumers were used to gauge anti-firm behaviors such as negative word of mouth, avoidance, complaining, and third party complaining following an accessibility-related service failure online, and what negative emotions may mediate these reactions. The moderating effects of effort and whether or not the consumer believes his or her complaint will make a difference were also tested. To illustrate the breadth of this problem of online inaccessibility, we evaluated the top 100 retailers in 2014 (as per the National Federation of Retailers) for their conformance to accepted accessibility standards for online commercial websites. By revealing both the anti-firm reactions of the online consumers directly affected, and the widespread nature of the problem, the objective of the present research is to revitalize the dialogue to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to include accessibility provisions for retail websites establishing equal access for disabled consumers. Method and Data Ninety-four blind and vision impaired participants were recruited for this test study from members of the local chapters of the Foundation Fighting Blindness and the National Federation of the Blind using an electronic snowball sampling technique. The survey was developed using slightly modified versions of literature established scales: Complaint Behavior (Cronbach's Alpha = .903), Third-Party Complaint Behavior (C.A. = .805), Switching (C.A. = .860), Complaint Success Likelihood (C.A. = .733), Anger (C.A. = 0.960); and Avoidance (C.A. = .910). The "Sort-Site" evaluation tool was used to test the accessibility of each website against the globally accepted World Wide Web Consortium 2.0 Guidelines which designates three levels of design flaws or errors that make it extremely difficult or impossible for someone using assistive technology to navigate websites. To determine the percentage of inaccessible content for the retail websites, we calculated the number of pages with errors out of the total number of pages available. We then tested the number of design flaws or errors on the home page, the transaction page, and on a random selection of the first twenty pages with accessibility problems. Summary of Findings The results show that accessibility-related service failures online lead to avoidance behaviors (mean = 5.08, and this effect is mediated by the negative emotion of anger (p-value = 0.000). Additionally, accessibility-related service failures online lead to negative word of mouth (mean = 4.74), and this effect is mediated by anger toward the retailer (pvalue = .003). The preliminary analysis indicates that accessibility-related service failures online will not lead to third-party complaining (mean = 3.27). These pretest results show that the effect is moderated by consumer feelings (likelihood) about whether the complaint will resolve the problem for avoidance (p-value = .021) and negative word of mouth (p-value = .016), but not for third party complaining (p-value = .554). Testing the correlation between the likelihood of a consumer complaining directly to the retailer and the feelings about whether the complaint will resolve the problem, we found a positive but not large correlation (r = .287) between these two variables. Finally, we found that the mean for the high effort condition (mean = 5.26) is larger compared to the low effort condition (mean = 4.9), and a paired t-test for a difference in means between the two conditions was highly significant (p-value = 0.0003). The evaluation of the retail websites showed many critical priority A and AA errors, and these errors appeared throughout the entirety of all retailer websites. There were no websites free from critical priority A and AA errors. However, critically important to this research, many errors appeared on the most heavily trafficked pages including the homepage, and the transaction page. Key Contributions In today's multichannel online and off-line retailing environments, sellers cannot afford to have any of their channels inaccessible to any potential market. By elucidating a problem affecting an expanding market of more than 30 million U.S. consumers, our research suggests a potential competitive opportunity exists for multi-channel sellers to better serve the oftentimes underserved blind and visionimpaired consumers. Whether due to low switching costs or feelings that their complaints will not remedy the situation, our pretest results show that disabled customers who experience an accessibility-related service failure online are unlikely to report the problem to the retailer. As ever more shopping is transacted online combined with the growing disabled population, businesses can benefit by making sure that blind and vision-impaired consumers are able to successfully navigate their websites and complete transactions. Our research findings demonstrate that manifest problems exist with many commercial websites, and that a large, growing consumer segment is adversely affected leading to lost profits. We hope these preliminary findings provoke further discussion about the competitive advantages for progressive retailers in taking the initiative to create more inclusive websites for this underserved market prior to the consideration of an amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]