Who wouldn't be there if government market distortions didn't make it profitable or otherwise culturally unfit. If a corporation is a machine that purely maximizes income, disabled people are a tiny niche market for boutique shops.
Secondly you underestimate Google's willingness to go after relative niche markets. For instance as of 2007, Google search was available in over 100 languages. (See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/internationalizatio... for verification.) Google translate serves over 50 different languages. (Go to http://translate.google.com/ and count them.) Many other Google products have been translated into dozens of languages. Lots of those have very few people.
In the mid-90s 1.3 million people in the USA were legally blind. That's larger than the number of speakers of languages like Basque or Estonian. Furthermore people who speak such niche languages usually speak other languages as well. If you've put the work in to internationalize your application and go after those kinds of niches, why not go after blind people as well?
Whoever downmodded me is a fucking jackass. That's the definition. Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value as obligations #1, 2 and 3.
There is no reason that Google should behave any differently than Exxon Mobil or Phillip Morris or whatever corporation you want to call "less moral than google". Basing public policy on the expectation that corporations will be moral is the dumbest thing possible -- it's actually in their charter to be immoral.
People regurgitate this all the time, but there is no such "law."