Presentation on theme: "Chapter 2: More on JURISDICTION. Due Process u Can only be sued where action does not offend “traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice”"— Presentation transcript:
Chapter 2: More on JURISDICTION
Due Process u Can only be sued where action does not offend “traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice” u Translation -- Under the circumstances, would I be surprised if I were sued in a particular venue for some harm that I allegedly caused.? u Application -- Decide what seems “fair” first, then manipulate legal context to reach that determination
U.S. Court Jurisdiction on the Internet General Jurisdiction u Defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic business activity within the state u Lawsuit may be unrelated to actual activities in the state. u I.e., defendant may be sued on any matter in the state once jurisdiction is established.
Specific Jurisdiction D efendant does not conduct substantial business within the state, but plaintiff’s claim arises out of defendant’s contacts with the state, which are sufficient that it is “just” to force a legal defense in that state. Factors courts weigh to determine if contacts are sufficient: u Purposeful Availment: Degree to which defendant purposefully directed activities within the state u Relatedness: Degree to which claim arises from defendant’s contacts with the state. u Reasonableness: Degree to which jurisdiction is reasonable based on issues such as defendant's burden, plaintiff's [in]convenience and state’s interest in entertaining the suit.
Specific Jurisdiction and the Internet u Lawsuit s/b related to Internet contacts u Sliding Scale Analysis for ‘Purposeful Availment’ Business conducted in state over the Internet (yes) Information exchanged with persons in state (maybe) –Commercial Interactivity –Evidence of targeting the state Passive (no) u Effects Test for ‘Purposeful Availment’ Intends to cause brunt of harm in the state. The increasing importance of Targeting
Highlighted Cases and Examples u The Blue Note case Passive site u Jeske v. Fenmore Interactive site u Verizon v. Ralsky Use of effects test in spam case u Pavlovich v. Santa Clara County (DeCSS case) Passive site Did not target harmful effects from trade secret misappropriation into California u Yahoo! auctions in France [see text] u ElcomSoft and the DMCA in U.S. [see text]
Other Examples u Bangoura v. Wash. Post UN official in Kenya moves to Canada and sues for defamation – no personal jurisdiction in Canada u Young v. New Haven Advocate Local story allegedly defames Virginia prison guard – no personal jurisdiction in Va. u Bell v. Imperial Palace Hotel Back injury in Las Vegas hotel not sufficiently related to Internet contacts to support jurisdiction.
Can the Judgment be Enforced? u Full faith and credit within/across U.S. states u International agreements vary widely Hague Convention negotiations u Importance of suing multinational corporations with local, reachable assets u Yahoo! example