Recall the factors of personal jurisdiction in
the United States:
principle: "notions of fair play and substantial
justice"
standard formulation / "minimum contacts"
test:
(1) contacts must show
"purposeful availment" of the forum state
(2) contacts must arise
from the incident [ for specific jurisdiction ]
(3) exercise of jurisdiction
must be "reasonable"
What is is that the constutitional limits on jurisdiction
are trying to prevent? What are we worried about?
The Zippo Framework
| "advertisement" / passive |
"interactive" / middle ground |
"doing business" / active |
| Bensusan |
Maritz v Cybergold
Inset Systems
|
Compuserve |
| no jurisdiction |
determined by level of "interactivity"
|
jurisdiction |
Where would you place the following cases:
Cybersell [ How does the requirement for
"something more" fit into the Zippo framework? ]
Hasbro v Clue Computing [ pg. 16 ]
How do these features of web sites indicate "purposeful
availment":
posting phone numbers
a list of shipping costs to each state
"mailto" links
links to a mapping site for driving directions
a fill-in form to request information
a web-based forum or chatroom
offering sales (to be completed by phone or mail)
offering sales (to be completed by online activities)
Under which (if any) of these circumstances should
jurisdiction be found in Pennsylvania:
less than 100 "hits" on the web site
from Pennsylvania
more than 100 hits per day from Pennsylvania
posts to a web discussion board from a resident of Pennsylvania
posts to a web discussion board from a resident of Pennsylvania,
but posted from a computer in Texas
A few Pennsylvania residents are members of a "free registration"
site
A web site run by a Delaware company, but the server is physically
located at a server farm in Pennsylvania
A web site "hosted" by a large edge provider (i.e.,
Akamai), with Pennsylvania as one of about 30 possible locations
where the site is served.
Structuring Activities to Avoid Jurisdiction
Why might we want to allow businesses/companies
to structure their behavior to limit jurisdiction? Is this fair?
Which of the following should be an effective
technique for limiting jurisdiction:
Refusal to ship products or offer memberships to Pennsylvania
residents.
Blocking the IP addresses of visitors located in Pennsylvania
(with 75% effectiveness).
Language on the site noting that the site is "not intended
for Pennsylvania residents".
The Effects Test
Requirements:
(1) Intentional acts
(2) Aimed at forum state
(3) Defendant knows that effects will be felt
in forum state
Panavision v Toeppen
Where does this case fit into the Zippo rubric?
[How is this case different from Cybersell?]
Does it make sense to use a different test? How do we decide
which test to use?
After Panavision, is there any limit to the effects test?
Can We Do Better?
Is there a better test for jurisdiction
on the Internet?