Personal Jurisdiction for Online Activities and International Jurisdiction

From Brian's Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



  • Use this page to list sources related to questions about what online activities may subject one to the jurisdiction of a given court, or other jurisdictional conflicts that arise online.

News / Editorial

Legal Opinions / Briefs

  • District Courts
    • Buckles v. Brides Club, Inc., No. 08-00849 (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2010) (personal jurisdiction found where defendants set up fake blog and linkedin account regarding plaintiff, whom they knew lived in Utah).
    • Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Bird, 2010 WL 447759 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2010) (dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction as under the Calder Effects Test "mere knowledge of an individual's residence, combined with intentional posting of defamatory statements on the internet (which, taken together, makes it foreseeable an individual will be harmed in a certain forum location) does not amount to 'express aiming.'").
    • uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., No. 09-2123 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009) (domain registrar not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois despite receiving 3.19% of its revenues from Illinois customers, among other Illinois contacts).
    • Royalty Network, Inc. v., LLC, 638 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted where plaintiff merely alleged that website targeted Indian-American population and that 15% of said population lived in New York, without any other evidence of New York contacts).
    • Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Virgin Eyes, LLC., No. 08-8564 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2009) (motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted where Defendant maintained a largely passive, semi-functional website focused on providing information about sunglasses, Google Sponsored Ads, some of which originated in New York, did not give rise to personal jurisdiction).
    • Mainstream Media EC v. Riven, No. 08-3623 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2009) (foreign defendant using email to purchase a stolen domain name registered with a California company using a California escrow company lacked sufficient minimum contacts with California for California to exercise specific personal jurisdiction).
    • Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, No. 06-03140, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55860, 2009 WL 1877332 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 2009) (addressing split over exercise of personal jurisdiction arising from a single internet-based sale to a New York plaintiff).
    • Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1954 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
    • The Am. Auto. Ass'n v. Darba Enters., 2009 WL 1066506 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2009).
    • CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. Field, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32563, 2009 WL 841132 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2009).
    • Societe des Bains de Mer v. MGM Mirage, No. 08-03157, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1028 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
    • Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC, 07-01389 RS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61962 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2007).
    • Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D.Penn. 2007).
    • Machulsky v. Hall, 210 F. Supp. 2d 531 (D.N.J. 2002).
    • Twentieth Cent. Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1831 (W.D. Pa. 2000).
    • Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger, 96 Civ 3620, 1997 WL 97097, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2065 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1997).
    • Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F.Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996).
    • Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, 937 F.Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996).
  • International