Re: Personal jurisdiction (was: DEC vs AltaVista)

Carl Oppedahl <carl[_at_]oppedahl.com> wrote:
>
> (2) courts have uniformly (with the exception of the Inset case)
> rejected this "sue them anywhere their web site can be clicked on"
> theory. The Blue Note case and the the Esqwire case are the first
> that come to mind.

No. The Southern District of New York has uniformly rejected the "sue them anywhere" theory, but nearly all other courts have embraced it. And, when you read those cases (particularly the "Esqwire" case, Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2065), you will discover that that result is driven by the limitations of the New York long-arm statute -- not the 14th Amendment. Although the vast majority of states' long-arm statutes reach the limits of due process, New York's does not. So when the Eastern District of Missouri (Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328) says that accessibility of a web site, without any other contacts, is a sufficient contact for personal jurisdiction in Missouri (for a tort based on the web site itself), it is no argument to say that the S.D.N.Y. disagrees.

Look, I agree that worldwide personal jurisdiction is uncalled-for and maybe unconstitutional (unless of course my client's the plaintiff ;o) ). But let's not kid ourselves -- the fact is that courts are increasingly exercising jurisdiction based on internet contacts alone.

Sandra Greiner
<sg1[_at_]ix.netcom.com> Received on Mon Jun 02 1997 - 12:01:25 GMT