Plaintiffs like Crystal Gregory and Michael Richmond have the best chance of success under state public accommodation statutes in states where it is clear that retail stores are covered. The states that expressly mention retail stores, and those that have laws broad enough to include retail stores without expressly mentioning the phrase, offer Gregory and Richmond the chance to bring their claims to court. Such statutes merely establish that “[a]ll persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin or disability.” Under public accommodation laws, Gregory and Richmond only have to prove that they were treated differently than white shoppers on the basis of their race. Since there is no tie to contract, Gregory's claim that she was monitored because of her race and that store employees were rude because of race is still actionable. Similarly, Richmond's claims that he was denied service and unable to view expensive merchandise because of his race are also actionable. Gregory and Richmond still have state court claims pending in Missouri, so the outcome of their claims under Missouri law is unclear. The outcome in states that do not define “place of public accommodation” is also unclear and hinges on whether those states would choose to use the Title II definition or whether they would seek guidance from other states with broader laws. Ultimately, if they are in a state that considers retail stores places of public accommodation, Gregory and Richmond would be more likely to get their claims to trial. The problem remains that not all states are consistent and clear in whether they consider retail stores places of public accommodation.