The concept of Internet jurisdiction can be complicated and unclear. For example, what happens when a dispute arises over an item or service purchased online from your business? If that dispute turns into a lawsuit, it could be with an individual residing across the country from your business. What happens then? If you live in California, could your business be dragged into a state court in Maine? Any business with an Internet presence should understand how courts gain authority to hear claims against out-of-state companies. The bottom line is that establishing Internet jurisdiction over your business can potentially be very costly!
Establishing Internet Jurisdiction Over Your Business
No matter what the subject of the dispute is about, a court must have what is known as “personal jurisdiction” over all the parties involved. This applies to all courts, including state and federal district courts. Establishing personal jurisdiction means that the court has the legal power to make a binding decision over the plaintiff and the defendant in a given dispute. For example, state and federal courts always have personal jurisdiction over state residents. But, matters are much more complex when the defendant’s principal residence or place of business is not in the state where the lawsuit is filed (often called the “forum state”).
This is often the case with suits involving e-commerce. (Note: A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which its principal place of business is located. A partnership or limited liability company is considered to assume the citizenship of each jurisdiction of its partners/members. Therefore, if you understand how a court can gain jurisdiction to hear a claim against your business, you can avoid certain practices that may expose you to out-of-state claims.)
The Concept of Minimum Contacts
A foreign court can claim personal jurisdiction over your business by establishing a meaningful connection with the state and your business. States can exercise jurisdiction over your business through their “long-arm statutes” (which I discuss separately). However, the Due Process Clause mandates that certain “minimum contacts” must exist between the forum state and the defendant for a state to assert jurisdiction over the defendant. This means that activities deemed to establish substantially sufficient contacts with the residents or businesses of a particular state can be used by its courts to establish jurisdiction over your business. For example, you are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of an out-of-state court simply because you are involved in an automobile accident with a resident of the state where you live. All the events necessary to give rise to the claim occur outside the state of the other resident.
READ MORE :
- Effects of the Internet on Today’s Lifestyles
- Helpful Tips For Saving From Costs Of High-Speed Internet
- How a Mac Clean-Up Will Make Your Mac Run Faster Than An Olympic Sprinter
- How Much Can You Learn From An SEO Blog?
- Selecting the Best Type of Internet Service Provider for Your Needs
Activities establishing minimum contacts with another state are not always clear, but any substantial presence in the state will usually justify personal jurisdiction. For example, regularly soliciting business in that state, deriving significant revenue from goods or services sold, or engaging in some other persistent and continuous business conduct would establish minimum contacts in that state.
Minimum Contacts Define Internet Jurisdiction
As stated, the concept of minimum contacts becomes more complicated when it involves the Internet. The courts have recognized that exposing the website owners to personal jurisdiction simply because the website can be viewed nationally is not enough to establish minimum contacts in a given state. Personal jurisdiction is “directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that a business conducts over the Internet.” Businesses that enter into contracts or subscriptions with residents of another state that involve the “knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet will be subject to the jurisdiction of out-of-state courts. However, websites that only post information without active sales are unlikely to establish personal jurisdiction in a foreign state (except where the owner(s) resides or conducts other business).
The ‘Zippo’ Sliding Scale Guide
Generally speaking, minimum contacts for Internet retailers and marketers are directly related to the nature and quality of electronic connections they establish with other state residents. In other words, mere advertising alone is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Most courts nationwide have adopted the “sliding scale” approach used in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (1997).
The court in Zippo determined that processing the applications from Pennsylvania residents and assigning passwords was sufficient to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts with the state. However, the Court held that jurisdiction is improper when a website passively posts information on the Internet that may or may not be viewed by residents of that jurisdiction. In the Zippo case, the district court described a spectrum consisting of three categories websites fall under. This spectrum ranges from 1) businesses conducting commercial activities over the Internet by entering into contracts with residents of the forum state; 2) interactive websites with which a user in the forum state can exchange information, and jurisdiction is proper if the level of interactivity is sufficient and there is a commercial component to the web site and 3) web sites which are “passive” by merely allowing users to post information accessible nationwide or globally that do not target a particular plaintiff in a particular forum (i.e., by intentional trademark or copyright infringement or in cases of defamation). Under the Zippo sliding scale, jurisdiction is more likely to be established when your Internet business engages in commercial activities directed at residents of a given state.
Of course, many cases fall in the middle of the Zippo sliding scale. In these instances, the courts generally have determined that “the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the website.” Making multiple sales to state residents will likely expose an Internet-based business to personal jurisdiction. A single deal may also be enough, provided it is accompanied by numerous intentional communications with resident customers so that the transaction can be said to be purposefully aimed at the residents (or businesses) of that state.
Typically, the courts require “something more” than passive Internet advertising or more than just a single sale for jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident Internet business. Jurisdiction is often triggered by repeated or commercially significant sales to out-of-state residents, deliberate target marketing, or influential non-Internet-based contacts with the state Planet Amend.
State Long Arm Statutes
All states have enacted “long-arm statutes,” setting forth what will be considered sufficient contact with that state. In a nutshell, the long-arm statute allows state courts to gain personal jurisdiction over Internet businesses. These legal statutes enable the courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over your business. Under these statutes, service of process outside the state on nonresident individuals and businesses is allowed for claims generally arising out of (1) the transaction of any business in the state, (2) the commission of a tortious act within the state, (3) the ownership, use, or possession of the real estate in the state; or (4) contracting to supply goods or services to any person or business in the state, or 5) causing injury or damage in this state to any person by breach of warranty expressly or impliedly made in the sale of goods; 6) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting; 7) an act or omission outside the state causing injury in the state. State courts typically exercise personal jurisdiction over Internet businesses under the “transacting business” provision of the long-arm statute. Like the Zippo court, state courts will look at jurisdiction in an Internet setting by looking at the “nature and quality” of the contacts with the state. Some Long-arm statutes set forth factual situations likely to satisfy the minimum contacts test. Others contain much broader provisions not inconsistent with constitutional restrictions.
Helpful Case Summaries
Here is a summary of some decisions that have helped shape the law regarding internet jurisdiction. Hopefully, these summaries can provide some guidance. Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc. (1998): A Texas court gained personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state online gambling enterprise because the gambling operation entered into contracts with Texas residents to play online gambling games, sent emails to the Texas residents and sent winnings to Texas residents; Chloé NA v Queen Bee of Beverly Hills LLC (2010): The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state website operator located in California might exist based on a single act of shipping a handbag into New York, along with other substantial business activity in the state. The single act of sending an infringing bag to New York combined with other important contacts, such as the shipment of several different items in-state and operating a commercial interactive website available to New York residents, was sufficient to obtain specific personal jurisdiction; Verizon Online Services, Inc. v. Ralksky (2002): The court held that nonresident defendants’ transmission of spam emails through the plaintiff’s servers, located in Virginia, to nonresident Internet subscribers created a substantial connection to the forum sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction on a claim of trespass to chattel; Gates v. Royal Palace Hotel (1998): The court decided that the combination of a concentrated advertising effort within the state of Connecticut, active booking of reservations for Connecticut citizens through state travel agents, and an invitation to Connecticut citizens to make reservations through the Internet, constituted the transaction of business within the state such that exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper.
Causing an Injury within a State
Your Internet business can also be subject to jurisdiction in another state for purposefully causing a physical or economic injury (i.e., a “tort”) to a business or resident of that state. This is a separate avenue of liability outside of a breach of contract claim where your business is dragged into court by one of your unhappy customers. If you use the Internet to cause an injury in one state, you or your business may be brought into court in the state where the injury occurred. For example, under state long-arm statutes, committing a tortious act within the state is a basis of jurisdiction. Of course, in cases where the connection between the activity and the injury is unclear, courts have looked for evidence that the action was “purposefully directed” at the resident(s) of the forum state or that the person causing the injury had substantial contact with the state.
Most courts are less inclined to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents in cases involving tort claims arising from Internet use. Generally speaking, an Internet business must direct its activities to an in-state resident or have a continuing obligation with that resident to anticipate being hauled into court in the state reasonably. But, not all torts or injuries will expose your business to the personal jurisdiction of another state.
Even if a plaintiff claims to feel the effects of the harm caused by an act causing injury in their forum state, there must still be “something more” than mere Internet use to satisfy due process under the Constitution. Purposeful conduct may still be insufficient in jurisdictions where the activity must be directed at the plaintiff in their capacity as a resident of that particular state.