In Van v. Target Corp. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1375, a group sued Target, Wal-Mart, and The Home Depot for prohibiting their signature gathering activities at a table off to the side of the entrance to each store. (Van, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1378-1379.) Each of these large retail stores was located in "larger retail developments," with "amenities provided by those centers, including their restaurants, theaters, and community events." (Id. at p. 1380.) Applying Pruneyard and its progeny, the Van court stated that "the apron and perimeter areas of the stores do not act as the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum." (Id. at p. 1388.) The Van court continued: "The defendants' stores--including the store apron and perimeter areas--are not designed as public meeting spaces. The stores' invitation to the public is to purchase merchandise and no particular societal interest is promoted by using the stores for expressive activity. As such, the defendants' interest in maintaining control over the area immediately in front of their stores outweighs society's interest in using those areas as public fora. We are not persuaded by the plaintiffs' central argument that the presence of the stores in larger, Pruneyard-type shopping centers alters this balance." (Van, supra, at p. 1390.)