1. Jurisdiction over E-Commerce Transactions: United States Law The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act October 26, 2004 The Hague John Rothchild Wayne State Law School Detroit, Michigan, United States jrothchild@wayne.edu

2. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu Personal jurisdiction Constitutional rule of due process Rule of fairness Requires sufficient contacts with forum state

3. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu Zippo criterion Three categories:  Doing business with residents of forum jurisdiction  Posting a passive website  Middle category: depends on “the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information”

4. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu Revision of the Zippo test Directs electronic activity into the state “With the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State” Gives rise to a cause of action — ALS Scan v. Digital Svc. Consultants

5. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu Effects test Intentional actions “Expressly aimed at the forum state” “Causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered—and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered—in the forum state”

6. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu Revision of the effects test Takes “expressly aimed” requirement more seriously “Mere foreseeability that the defendant’s conduct would have such an effect is not sufficient.” — Young v. New Haven Advocate

7. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu Convergence of Zippo and effects test Both require the defendant to take some action that indicates a specific intent to have contacts with people or businesses located in the territory where the court sits

8. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu International applications Application of Zippo:  Graduate Management Admission Council v. Raju: targeting of US found based on providing ordering instructions Applications of the effects test:  MGM v. Grokster: defendant charged with knowing of effect on California industries  Yahoo! v. LICRA: no jurisdiction because no wrongful conduct

9. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu UCITA Like the Uniform Commercial Code But Unlike UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce Unlike Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

10. John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu UCITA is controversial Opposed by consumer protection advocates Adopted in only two states Banned by “bomb-shelter” legislation in four states NCCUSL no longer promotes it