Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to subject a defendant to suit in the forum state. In order to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant and subject him or her to suit in the forum state, there must be: (1) sufficient “minimum contacts” between a defendant and the forum state, (2) the claim asserted against defendant must arise out of those contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be “reasonable.” A defendant must “purposefully avail” himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum state before he or she may be subject to suit in the forum state.
However, the Internet has made it possible to reach viewers all over the world. Does this mean that by publishing a website in Florida one is automatically subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, simply because he or she knows that Internet surfers in New York will be able to gain access to the site?
Although the following test is not employed in all jurisdictions, it is used in most jurisdictions to varying degrees. Whether a forum state may exercise jurisdiction over a web site owner is determined, in part, on a sliding scale of interactivity. Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). On one end of the sliding scale, a “passive” web site that serves as nothing more than an online billboard to those who are interested in it will not subject a web site operator to jurisdiction in a foreign state. On the other end of the spectrum, where a web site operator enters, through his website, into repeated contracts with residents of foreign states, and these transactions involve knowing transmissions of files and/or information over the Internet, personal jurisdiction over the web site operator is proper. An increase in the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the online activity in a defendant’s web site increases the probability that the forum state has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (It should be noted that the level of interactivity of a web site is not the only factor that a court will take into account. Courts have stressed that whether the defendant intentional targeted residents of a foreign state is an important factor in determining personal jurisdiction.)
Of course, there is a middle ground, where personal jurisdiction is not so clear-cut.
However, here are two such cases that may illustrate the foregoing:
- Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 146 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335 (6th Dist. 2006) (no personal jurisdiction in California over car dealer located in Florida, who, despite advertising that he shipped cars “worldwide” on his website, only sold 10 out of almost 45,000 cars sold to residents of California).
- American Eyewear, Inc. v. Peeper’s Sunglasses and Accessories, Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 895 (N.D.Tex. 2000) (personal jurisdiction over Minnesota seller, where seller maintained interactive website allowing for direct purchases of eyewear products by Texas Internet users, and where a vice president of seller conceded that the seller attempts to reach every person who has Internet access, including Texans, and to provide them with the opportunity to purchase its products from anywhere).
Recent Comments