· internet jurisdiction: a survey of legal scholarship published in english and united states...
TRANSCRIPT
Internet Jurisdiction: A Survey of Legal Scholarship Published in English
and United States Case Law
JUNE 30, 2013
Research Team
Joel R. Reidenberg Stanley D. & Nikki Waxberg Chair Founding Director, Fordham CLIP
Jamela Debelak Executive Director, Fordham CLIP
Jordan Kovnot Interim Director, Fordham CLIP
Megan Bright Dean’s Fellow, Fordham CLIP
N. Cameron Russell CLIP Fellow, Fordham CLIP
Daniela Alvarado Project Fellow, Fordham CLIP
Emily Seiderman Project Fellow, Fordham CLIP
Andrew Rosen Project Fellow, Fordham CLIP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A gift from Google, Inc. to the Center on Law and Information Policy at the Fordham University School of
Law, New York, NY (Fordham CLIP) supported work on this study.
© 2013. Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy. This study may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for educational and non‐commercial purposes.
TableofContentsI. Research Mission .................................................................................................................................. 1
A. Scope of the Project .......................................................................................................................... 1
B. Research Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1
1. Literature ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Key U.S. Cases ............................................................................................................................... 4
II. Analysis of the Academic Literature ..................................................................................................... 9
A. Case‐Focused Articles ....................................................................................................................... 9
1. U.S. Personal Jurisdiction Cases .................................................................................................. 10
2. International Cases ..................................................................................................................... 16
B. Personal Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................................... 20
1. Courts Should Create New Tests for Personal Jurisdiction ......................................................... 20
2. Sufficient Legal Tools Exist for Analyzing Personal Jurisdiction Issues ....................................... 22
C. Choice of Law .................................................................................................................................. 23
D. Proposed Approaches to Jurisdiction Issues ................................................................................... 24
1. New Legal Tools are Needed to Analyze Internet Jurisdiction ................................................... 24
2. Geolocation Technologies are a Solution ................................................................................... 25
3. Geographic Borders Should Not Apply in Cyberspace / Treat Cyberspace as Its Own Separate
Place .................................................................................................................................................... 27
4. Establish a Uniform, International Regulatory Scheme .............................................................. 27
5. Hague Convention ....................................................................................................................... 29
6. Parochialism Is Not Desirable ..................................................................................................... 30
7. Online Dispute Resolution .......................................................................................................... 30
E. Subject Area Specific Articles .......................................................................................................... 31
1. E‐Commerce ................................................................................................................................ 31
2. Online Speech ............................................................................................................................. 35
3. Intellectual Property ................................................................................................................... 39
4. Cybercrime .................................................................................................................................. 43
5. Gambling ..................................................................................................................................... 44
6. Taxing Internet Sellers ................................................................................................................ 46
7. Torts ............................................................................................................................................ 47
F. Other Significant Themes ................................................................................................................ 47
1. Comparing Jurisdictions .............................................................................................................. 48
2. Federalism ................................................................................................................................... 49
3. Practice‐Oriented Articles ........................................................................................................... 50
4. State‐ and Country‐Specific Scholarship ..................................................................................... 51
5. Data Havens ................................................................................................................................ 53
G. Miscellaneous Articles .................................................................................................................... 54
III. Analysis of the Key U.S. Case Law ................................................................................................... 54
A. General Findings ............................................................................................................................. 54
1. Unequal Distribution Among the Circuits ................................................................................... 55
2. Narrow Range of Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................... 56
3. Significant Cited Non‐Internet Cases .......................................................................................... 56
B. Subject Matter Trends .................................................................................................................... 56
1. Intellectual Property ................................................................................................................... 56
2. Defamation ................................................................................................................................. 57
C. Tests Applied – Post‐Zippo Trends .................................................................................................. 57
1. Calder’s Enduring Test ................................................................................................................ 58
2. Zippo’s Test ................................................................................................................................. 58
3. Applications of Zippo .................................................................................................................. 59
IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 61
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ACADEMIC LITERATURE ................................................................................................ 62
TABLE OF CASES .......................................................................................................................................... 82
1
I. ResearchMissionThe goal of this study is to identify the trends in the legal literature and key U.S. case law with respect to
jurisdiction for claims arising out of Internet activity. Questions about jurisdiction arise in almost every
Internet case and the legal rules and tests remain in flux in the United States and internationally. This
report seeks to offer an objective and comprehensive survey of the literature and of key U.S. court
decisions on Internet jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction law is comprised of three main legal questions.1 First, courts must consider questions of
personal jurisdiction or whether a court has power over the parties involved in a lawsuit such that it may
hear and determine the case. This analysis typically requires the court to consider what type of contacts
or relationship the parties have had with the forum state.2 Second, courts must address choice of law
and consider what law applies to the dispute. In Internet cases involving parties from different
territorial jurisdictions, courts must determine whether to apply the laws of their territory or of the
foreign territory. Finally, there is the issue of enforcement of judgments, the jurisdiction to enforce.
Courts must consider both whether their judgments will require the cooperation of another territorial
jurisdiction and whether they are able or willing to apply a judgment set forth by a court in another
territorial jurisdiction.
A. ScopeoftheProjectThis study sets forth a survey of and trends in the legal and policy literature and in U.S. jurisprudence
related to jurisdictional issues that arise in connection with Internet activities. The study’s purpose is to
provide an objective and thorough resource that can assist scholars and policy makers in their search for
materials addressing internet jurisdiction. The study does not take any position on the body of law
concerning internet jurisdiction, on the merits of any arguments presented in the scholarship or on how
jurisdictional issues should be addressed. The purpose of the study is to report on the information
available and the observable trends in the literature and case law.
B. ResearchMethodologyThe research was divided in two phases: one for the literature and one for the US case law. Fordham
CLIP developed parallel methodologies for each phase to identify the relevant materials for analysis.
1. Literature
For the literature portion of this report, Fordham CLIP collected and analyzed the academic scholarship
related to jurisdiction in claims arising from activity taking place on the Internet. The Fordham CLIP
team put together a list of relevant search terms and applied those terms to multiple legal databases.
The articles identified in the searches were reviewed to determine whether they focused, in whole or in
1 In this report the term “jurisdiction,” standing alone, refers collectively to the three legal issues that make up this body of law. 2 This report uses the term “forum” or “territorial jurisdiction” to refer to legal authority applicable within a defined geographic boundary.
2
part, on issues of Internet jurisdiction or only related tangentially to Internet jurisdiction. All relevant
results were then categorized to identify trends in the scholarship.
i. SearchApproach
Fordham CLIP selected multiple search terms to use across several academic reference databases. Key
words were used in combination with the search term “Internet” across each database to maximize the
chances of locating works that addressed, in whole or in part, Internet jurisdiction. While some false
positives appeared in the results, this approach ensured that all sufficiently relevant publications were
likely to be identified. This approach also reduces the risk that a relevant work would be omitted in the
final report. This approach also assures that the results can be reproduced using the search terms and
databases described and can be updated as needed in the future.
In addition, a date filter was selected. Searches were limited to literature published subsequent to
January 1, 2002 and prior to October 15, 2012 in order to have meaningful results capturing the current
trends. The Fordham CLIP team also used the date filter to return a manageable number of results from
the research databases that catalog articles going back much further in time.
ii. SelectionofSearchTerms
In order to cast the broadest possible net of relevant terms, Fordham CLIP selected search terms that
would necessarily have to be included in any substantial discussion of Internet jurisdiction. Search
terms were selected in order to capture research related to personal jurisdiction, choice of law, the
challenges of international cooperation, distinctions among the treatment of different subject matter
claims and the implications of geolocation technologies. The terms selected were variations on terms
related to these topics, namely “personal jurisdiction,” “choice of law,” “conflict of law,” “international
private law,” “mutual legal assistance treaty,” “cross border jurisdiction,” and “conflicting judgment,”
each when used in connection with “Internet.”
The research approach and the use of the search terms are best visualized as a matrix. See Table 1
below. Searches were conducted using the combination of terms reflected by each of the boxes in the
matrix (e.g., “personal jurisdiction” was searched in combination with “Internet,” on the vertical axis of
the matrix).
3
Table 1
Internet
Personal jurisdiction
Choice /2 law
Conflict of law
International private law
Mutual legal assistance treat!
Cross‐border /p jurisdiction
Cross border /p jurisdiction
Conflicting judgment!
During the course of the research, some of the searches resulted in overwhelming volumes of false
positives within possibly relevant literature. For these cases, additional search query criteria were
introduced to more accurately pinpoint the number of publications that feature relevant discussions of
jurisdiction on the Internet and to filter out those that merely mention the issue in passing. To do this,
we required that the term “Internet” appear in the text a minimum of ten times.
iii. Databases
Fordham CLIP used a comprehensive set of academic databases to assure an accurate canvassing of
legal scholarship. These were:
Index to Legal Periodicals – This is an index that covers the 500 most significant legal periodicals.
The index only includes titles and does not allow full‐text search.
Lexis – This database offers full‐text search for virtually every American legal periodical, as well
as numerous foreign and international journals.
WestLaw – This database offers full‐text search for virtually every American legal periodical.
Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals – This is an index of foreign (i.e. non‐U.S.) legal periodicals
published in English. Like the Index to Periodicals, this index includes only publication titles and
does not offer full‐text search.
4
iv. ReviewofSearchResults
Each CLIP team member was assigned one or more specific databases to research according to the
methodology described above. The initial searches resulted in a total of 19,930 articles. Fordham CLIP
members reviewed initial search results and filtered out duplicate results. False positives were
identified by reading article abstracts, introductory sections, and portions of text where the search
terms were highly concentrated. Where a text featured the necessary search criteria but was primarily
focused on another topic without offering particular insight or analysis of Internet jurisdiction, it was
excluded as not relevant to the report. Texts in which references to Internet jurisdiction were found
only in footnotes or in passing were also excluded for having low relevance. Publications of practice
materials or notes from conferences were also excluded. Case note articles that merely summarized a
judicial opinion without adding substantial commentary or analysis were similarly excluded. Articles
appearing as relevant were designated for later review and categorization.
After this filtering, 318 articles were identified as relevant texts for analysis. Once all citations were
identified, Fordham CLIP members reviewed the texts to identify themes. Team members met to
discuss common themes and trends in scholarship observed during this round of reviews. General
thematic categories were outlined and the articles were categorized accordingly. Many articles
reflected more than one theme and were therefore placed in multiple categories. After this
categorization was complete, a member of the Fordham CLIP team reexamined the articles of a
particular theme to verify each article’s fit within the group and further draw out parallel ideas and
concepts within a given cluster. This provided the basis for the analyses relating to the academic
literature contained in this report.
2. KeyU.S.Cases
For the U.S. case law portion of this report, Fordham CLIP collected and analyzed the recent court
decisions related to jurisdiction in claims arising from activity taking place on the Internet. The Fordham
CLIP team created a list of relevant search terms, described below, and applied those terms within the
Westlaw legal database. The most recent cases identified in the searches were reviewed to determine
whether they focused, in whole or in part, on issues of Internet jurisdiction or only related tangentially
to Internet jurisdiction. The relevant results were then reviewed to identify seminal case law relied
upon within the recent U.S. court decisions. This approach assures that the results can be reproduced
using the search terms and Westlaw database and can be updated as needed in the future. Further, the
methodology developed enables an objective selection of key decisions for analysis.
i. SearchApproach
Fordham CLIP first identified seminal cases from the “jurisdiction” portion of a leading Internet law case
book.3 These cases were reviewed to identify multiple search terms for use within the Westlaw
reference database. Key words were selected to be used in combination with the search terms “online,”
“Internet” and “website,” respectively, within the Westlaw database to maximize the chance of locating
court decisions that addressed, in whole or in part, Internet jurisdiction. This search was conducted for
3 RAYMOND S.R. KU & JACQUELINE LIPTON, CYBERSPACE LAW xi‐xii (3d ed.2010).
5
both federal and state case law within the Westlaw database.4 In order to minimize the number of false
positives within the results, the following additional search query criteria were applied to more
accurately identify the court decisions that focused on jurisdiction on the Internet and to filter out those
that merely mention the issue in passing: (i) The term “online” appeared in the text a minimum number
of three times, or (ii) the term “Internet” appeared in the text a minimum number of three times, or (iii)
the term “website” appeared in the text a minimum number of five times.
In addition, to keep the results relevant and manageable, a date filter was applied. First, searches were
limited to court decisions rendered on or subsequent to January 1, 2003, and on or prior to December
31, 2012. This selection was designed to provide meaningful results that would capture the current
trends.
ii. SelectionofSearchTerms
In order to cast the broadest possible net of relevant terms, Fordham CLIP selected search terms that
would necessarily be included in any substantial discussion of Internet jurisdiction within a court
decision. Search terms were chosen to capture case law related to each of the types of jurisdiction:
personal jurisdiction, choice of law and the effects of Internet activity occurring within of a particular
court’s territory. The terms selected were as follows: “minimum contacts,” “purposeful availment,”
“effects test” and “choice of law.” As noted above, these were each used in connection with each of the
additional filter terms: “online,” “Internet” or “website.” As discussed above, “online,” “Internet” and
“website” had to appear the requisite number of times within a particular text in order to be included in
the initial results dataset.
This initial research approach and the use of the search terms may be visualized as a matrix. See Table 2
below. Searches were conducted using the combination of terms reflected by each of the boxes in the
matrix (e.g., “minimum contacts” on the vertical axis of the matrix was searched in combination with
“website” appearing at least five times on the horizontal axis of the matrix, etc.).
Table 2
Date Range: January 1, 2003 ‐ December 31, 2012
Website (X5) Online (X3) Internet (X3)
Minimum contacts
Purpose! /s avail!
Effects test
Choice of law
4 Westlaw offers full‐text search for virtually every published American court decision.
6
iii. ReviewofSearchResults
The initial searches resulted in the following number of court decisions for each search category (see
Table 3 below):
Table 3
Date Range: January 1, 2003 ‐ December 31, 2012
Website (X5) Online (X3) Internet (X3)
Minimum contacts 2252 716 2320
Purpose! /s avail! 1658 499 1647
Effects test 2096 694 2255
Choice of law 462 242 451
Because these searches resulted in a high number of false positives, as well as significantly large
numbers of search results for each search category, Fordham CLIP narrowed the date range to court
decisions rendered from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 and introduced an additional search
filter that eliminated all decisions without the term “jurisdiction” used at least five times by the court.
These filters refined and improved the search results. The narrower date range assured that the results
would still capture current trends, and the screen for use of the term “jurisdiction” targeted the most
relevant cases.
This final research approach is reflected in the following matrix. See Table 4 below. Searches were
conducted using the combination of terms reflected by each of the boxes in the matrix (e.g., “minimum
contacts,” on the vertical axis of the matrix, was searched in combination with “jurisdiction” appearing
at least five times and “website” appearing at least five times on the horizontal axis of the matrix).
7
Table 4
Date Range: January 1, 2011 ‐ December 31, 2012
Jurisdiction (X5) &
Website (X5)
Jurisdiction (X5) &
Online (X3)
Jurisdiction (X5) &
Internet (X3)
Minimum contacts
Purpose! /s avail!
Effects test
Choice of law
The initial searches resulted in the following numbers of court decisions in each search category (see
Table 5 below):
Table 5
Date Range: January 1, 2011 ‐ December 31, 2012
Jurisdiction (X5) &
Website (X5)
Jurisdiction (X5) &
Online (X3)
Jurisdiction (X5) &
Internet (X3)
Minimum contacts 636 217 616
Purpose! /s avail! 379 97 289
Effects test 611 211 613
Choice of law 97 37 77
While some false positives appeared in the final search results, the approach ensured that all sufficiently
relevant and recent court decisions were likely to be identified. False positives were identified by
reading the case abstracts, headnotes, and portions of the court decisions where the search terms were
highly concentrated. Where a decision featured the necessary search terms but was primarily focused
on another topic without offering particular insight or analysis of Internet jurisdiction, it was excluded as
not relevant to the report. Moreover, search results were excluded where they consisted of a
magistrate’s report and recommendation that had not yet been adopted by court order.
8
After eliminating the false positives, the 10 most recent court decisions in each of the 12 search
categories were selected for analysis and were consolidated into one list of court decisions by
eliminating duplicate cases which appeared in multiple search categories. A total of 50 non‐duplicate
relevant cases remained that dealt directly with jurisdictional issues arising from Internet activity during
the two‐year date range.
From those 50 cases, Fordham CLIP identified the cited case law used by the courts in those 50 cases to
reach their jurisdictional conclusions with respect to activity occurring on the Internet. Fordham CLIP
then compiled a list of those cases cited within the 50 court decisions. After this list of “reliance cases”
was compiled, decisions that were only relied upon by one court within the fifty‐case dataset were
eliminated as insufficiently significant. For example, from the reliance list, ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv.
Consultants, Inc.5 was identified as cited 10 times. If the District of Massachusetts relied on ALS Scan in
two different cases, ALS Scan was counted twice. If one District of Massachusetts case cited ALS Scan
multiple times within one particular decision, it was only counted once. After eliminating the
insignificant cases from the “reliance list,” the final results revealed 41 cases which were relied upon in
more than one decision within the most recent 50‐cases.6
This “final list,” thus, reflects those cases that are key to contemporary courts’ decisions on Internet
jurisdiction matters, and Fordham CLIP concluded that these 41 cases constitute the seminal case law
within modern jurisprudence concerning the topic.
5 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002). 6 These 41 seminal cases are as follows: ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000); Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Be2LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011); Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007); Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002); Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, Inc., 999 F.Supp. 636 (E.D.Pa.1998); Bombliss v. Cornelsen, 824 N.E.2d 1175 (2005); Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2008); Brainerd v. Governors of Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1989); Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984); Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003); Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011); CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996); Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997); Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1991); ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC, 34 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.S.C. 1999); Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U. S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011); Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 611 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2010); Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704 (8th Cir . 2003); Lindgren v. GDT, 312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004); MacNeil v. Trambert, 932 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010); Mavrix v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011); Millennium Enter. v. Millennium Music, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999); Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999); Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002); Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004); Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011); Sportschannel New England Ltd. P'ship v. Fancaster, Inc., 2010 WL 3895177 (D.Mass. 2010); Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010); Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003); Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006); Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002); and Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997).
9
Fordham CLIP then reviewed and examined these 41 cases to identify common themes and trends
within them. These conclusions and observations provide the basis for the analysis contained in this
report.
II. AnalysisoftheAcademicLiteratureThe Fordham CLIP research team identified 318 articles addressing Internet jurisdiction between 2002
and 2012. This is a significant number of articles reflecting that, as society has become more reliant on
Internet technologies with disputes more frequently involving parties from different states and
countries, the body of literature addressing the new jurisdictional issues raised by Internet disputes has
grown.
Although some of the scholarship focuses exclusively on either personal jurisdiction or choice of law
issues, most of the articles address all three classes of jurisdiction law in the context of broader themes.
The majority of the scholarship demonstrates that the different categories of legal analysis typically
overlap with and influence one another. Much of the literature suggests that courts and policy makers
recognize how one issue, such as personal jurisdiction, impacts the others like enforcement and
proposes solutions and tests that address all three categories of the law. While courts typically
recognize the jurisdictional issues in the three distinct ways, the legal literature more frequently
discusses all three collectively.
Within the academic literature, Fordham CLIP identified a sizeable number of clusters that show notable
trends. Article clusters, for example, discuss major cases from the United States and abroad. Large
clusters of the literature also consider each of personal jurisdiction problems, choice of law issues,
general solutions to jurisdictional issues and specific subject matter areas (i.e. e‐commerce, speech and
defamation law, and intellectual property law.) Another large group, however, focuses on the full scope
of jurisdiction law and presents varying arguments, solutions or legal tests that can impact all three
categories of jurisdictional analysis. There are also smaller trends comprised of clusters with fewer
articles that are quite varied and unique. These smaller clusters range from topics such as federalism,
data havens, to state‐ and country‐specific scholarship.
Set forth below is a description of each trend with the respective bibliographies referenced in the
footnotes. The trends emerged from arguments advanced by the articles, solutions presented or a focus
on common issues.
A. Case‐FocusedArticlesFordham CLIP identified approximately 60 articles that examine in‐depth the holdings of and legal
standards arising from a set of Internet jurisdiction cases. The vast majority of this scholarship
addresses either significant United States personal jurisdiction cases or landmark international
jurisdiction cases.7 The articles focused on the U.S. cases primarily discuss how personal jurisdiction is
7 The rest of this scholarship concentrates on less‐prominent cases. See Jesse Anderson, Toys "R" Us, the Third Circuit, and A Standard for Jurisdictional Discovery Involving Internet Activities, 9 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 471 (2003); Laura S. Ferster, Griffis v. Luban: A Red Herring in the High Seas of Personal Jurisdiction, 29 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 343
10
analyzed in U.S. courts. The articles focused on the international cases examine broadly the three areas
of jurisdiction law.
1. U.S.PersonalJurisdictionCases
The majority of the articles that examine U.S. case law focus on Calder v. Jones and Zippo Manufacturing
Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.. This subset of articles is specifically focused on how U.S. courts have
determined personal jurisdiction in Internet cases. These articles summarize and explain the commonly
used legal tests and provide critiques of and changes to the current methodologies.
i. Calderv.Jones8
Nine of the case‐centric articles analyze the “effects test” for establishing personal jurisdiction
articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones.9 In Calder, actress Shirley Jones
brought an action in a California court against the National Enquirer’s Iain Calder and John South for an
allegedly libelous article they wrote and edited in Florida.10 The article was published in the National
Enquirer and distributed throughout California and the United States.11 In deciding to uphold
California’s personal jurisdiction over Calder and South, the Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he fact
that the actions causing the effects in California were performed outside the State [should] not prevent
the State from asserting jurisdiction over a cause of action arising out of those effects.”12 The Court
accordingly held that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in a forum when they were
(2002); Megan M. La Belle, The Future of Internet‐Related Personal Jurisdiction After Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. Mcintyre v. Nicastro, 15 NO. 7 J. INTERNET L. 3 (2012); Felicia M. Lee, Civil Procedure‐Roblor Marketing Group, Inc v. Gps Industries: Should the Sliding Scale Analysis of Interactivity Be Used to Assess Personal Jurisdiction over Companies or Individuals Operating Websites?, 33 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 425 (2009); Note, Civil Procedure‐Personal Jurisdiction‐Ninth Circuit Holds That Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Company Whose Website Cultivates Significant Forum State User Base Comports with Due Process.‐Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 125 HARV. L. REV. 634 (2011); David Schaffer, Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co.: A Maryland Court Cannot Exercise Personal Jurisdiction over an Out‐of‐State Defendant Based Solely on the Existence of Defendant’s Internet Website or Link, 36 U. BALT. L.F. 57 (2005). 8 465 U.S. 783 (1984). 9 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Teresa J. Cassidy, Civil Procedure‐Effects of the "Effects Test": Problems of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet; Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008), 9 WYO. L. REV. 575 (2009); Matthew Chivvis, Reexamining the Yahoo! Litigations: Toward an Effects Test for Determining International Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 699 (2007); Andrew F. Halaby, Making Sense of “Express Aiming” After Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 37 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 625 (2005); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011); Alexander B. Punger, Mapping the World Wide Web: Using Calder v. Jones to Create a Framework for Analyzing when Statements Written on the Internet Give Rise to Personal Jurisdiction, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1952 (2009); Dennis T. Rice & Julia Gladstone, An Assessment of the Effects Test in Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 58 BUS. LAWYER 601 (2003); Cassandra Burke Robertson, The Inextricable Merits Problem in Personal Jurisdiction, 45 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1301 (2012); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006). 10 Calder, 465 U.S. at 784. 11 Id. at 785. In fact, more copies of the Enquirer were sold in California than in any other state. Id. 12 Id. at 787.
11
“primary participants in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at a [forum] resident” and they
knew their actions would injure the resident in the forum.13
Although some articles view Calder’s effects test favorably and encourage its use when determining
personal jurisdiction in Internet cases,14 more believe the standard should be modified.15 These articles
offer a variety of solutions to perceived problems with the test. For example, one author claims Calder’s
“express aiming” or “purposefully directed” requirement “prevents the exercise of personal jurisdiction
in cases where Internet‐based activities represent the modern functional equivalent of actual physical
presence in a forum.”16 The author suggests discarding that element and finding personal jurisdiction
when defendants “engag[e] in activity that will cause harm somewhere, no matter ‘where that where
may be.’”17 On the other hand, another author argues that “courts should require a higher burden of
jurisdictional proof in effects‐test cases, even at the risk of limiting court access for some plaintiffs.”18
This change, the author purports, would result in a more consistent application of the test and greater
predictability for courts and defendants alike.19
ii. ZippoManufacturingCo.v.ZippoDotCom,Inc.20
Nearly 20 of the articles surveyed examine the utility of the “sliding scale” personal jurisdiction test set
forth by the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo
Dot Com, Inc..21 This test is used by a majority of federal courts in Internet cases.22 Zippo involved a
13 Id. at 790. 14 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671, 689 (2007) (arguing that the Calder effects test “should be the governing standard for jurisdictional inquiries where a foreign order implicates domestic constitutional rights”); Matthew Chivvis, Reexamining the Yahoo! Litigations: Toward an Effects Test for Determining International Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 699, 700‐01 (2007); (proposing that “courts should use an effects test when deciding international civil disputes involving solely cyberspace harms”); Alexander B. Punger, Mapping the World Wide Web: Using Calder v. Jones to Create a Framework for Analyzing when Statements Written on the Internet Give Rise to Personal Jurisdiction, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1952, 1957 (2009) (claiming that North Carolina courts should apply the Calder effects to Internet communications). 15 Teresa J. Cassidy, Civil Procedure‐Effects of the "Effects Test": Problems of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet; Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008), 9 WYO. L. REV. 575, 597 (2009); Andrew F. Halaby, Making Sense of “Express Aiming” After Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 37 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 625, 625 (2005); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159, 187‐88 (2011); Dennis T. Rice & Julia Gladstone, An Assessment of the Effects Test in Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 58 BUS. LAWYER 601, 603 (2003); Cassandra Burke Robertson, The Inextricable Merits Problem in Personal Jurisdiction, 45 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1301, 1305‐06 (2012). 16 Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159, 187 (2011). 17 Id. at 188. 18 Cassandra Burke Robertson, The Inextricable Merits Problem in Personal Jurisdiction, 45 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1301, 1305‐06 (2012). 19 Id. at 1303‐04. 20 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). 21 Bunmi Awoyemi, Zippo is Dying, Should It Be Dead? The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction by U.S. Federal Courts Over Non‐Domiciliary Defendants in Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Arising out of Cyberspace, 9 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 37 (2005); Joshua Beldner, How Technologically Savvy Do You Have to Be to Apply Zippo? An Approach
12
trademark dispute between Zippo Manufacturing, the Pennsylvanian maker of Zippo lighters, and Zippo
Dot Com, a California‐based Internet news service and owner of the “zippo.com” subscription news
website.23 After being sued in federal court in Pennsylvania, Zippo Dot Com moved to dismiss the suit
for lack of personal jurisdiction.24 Zippo Dot Com had approximately 3,000 paying subscribers in
Pennsylvania and “agreements with seven Internet access providers in Pennsylvania to permit their
subscribers to access [its] news service.”25 Its additional contacts with Pennsylvania, however, occurred
“exclusively over the Internet.”26 The district court thus focused on whether it had specific, rather than
general, personal jurisdiction over Zippo Dot Com.27
After reciting the requirements for exercising specific personal jurisdiction over a non‐resident and
briefly reviewing the major personal jurisdiction case law,28 the district court concluded that “the
likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the
to Internet Personal Jurisdiction After Fancaster and Edvisors, 17 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 318 (2011); Eugenia G. Carter & Jennifer R. Racine, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: An Update, 76‐OCT WIS. LAW. 20 (2003); Judy A. Clausen, Eleventh Circuit Review: Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A. ‐‐ The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance, 11 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 53 (2009); Joann K. Coston, Embrace the New, But Don’t Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the New Internet Age, 34 S.U. L. REV. 249 (2007); Catherine Ross Dunham, Zippo‐ing the Wrong Way: How the Internet has Misdirected the Federal Courts in Their Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 43 U.S.F. L. REV. 559 (2009); Emily Ekland, Note, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380 (2012); David M. Fritch, Beyond Zippo’s “Sliding Scale”‐‐The Third Circuit Clarifies Internet‐based Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 49 VILLANOVA L. REV. 931 (2004); Richard K. Greenstein, The Action Bias in American Law: Internet Jurisdiction and the Triumph of Zippo Dot Com, 80 TEMPLE L. REV. 21 (2007); Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2371 (2006); Lora M. Jennings, Finding Legal Certainty for E‐Commerce: Traditional Personal Jurisdiction Analysis and the Scope of the Zippo Sliding Scale, 44 WASHBURN L.J. 381 (2005); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Pavan Mehrotra, Back to the Basics: Why Traditional Principles of Personal Jurisdiction Are Effective Today and Why Zippo Needs to Go, 12 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 229 (2010); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011); Dennis T. Rice & Julia Gladstone, An Assessment of the Effects Test in Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 58 BUS. LAWYER 601 (2003); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319 (2003); Dennis T. Yokoyama, You Can’t Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147 (2005). 22 Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2371, 2384 (2006). Also, as discussed in Section III(C)(2), the Fordham CLIP team’s case law analysis likewise demonstrates Zippo’s modern importance. 23 952 F. Supp. at 1120. 24 Id. at 1121. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. at 1122. 28 See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985); World‐Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
13
nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.”29 The court
described this proportionately as a “sliding scale”:
At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over
the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign territorial
jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over
the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end are situations where a
defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to
users in foreign territorial jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than
make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the
exercise personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites
where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the
exercise of personal jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and
commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.30
Using this sliding scale, the district court found that Zippo Dot Com purposefully availed itself of the
Pennsylvania forum by entering into electronic contracts with Pennsylvania residents.31 The exercise of
personal jurisdiction was according to the court, therefore, proper.32
a. ArticlesDiscussingZippoanditsProgeny
Just over half of the articles discussing Zippo primarily examine the ways in which courts have applied
the Zippo sliding scale test in subsequent cases.33 While a few of these articles focus on providing
information for practitioners about Zippo and its progeny,34 or seek to explain why Zippo dominates
29 Zippo, 925 F. Supp. at 1124. 30 Id. (citations omitted). 31 Id. at 1126. 32 Id. at 1127 (further concluding that the cause of action arose out of Zippo Dot Com’s contacts with the forum and finding that the exercise of jurisdiction was reasonable). 33 Joshua Beldner, How Technologically Savvy Do You Have to Be to Apply Zippo? An Approach to Internet Personal Jurisdiction After Fancaster and Edvisors, 17 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 318 (2011); Eugenia G. Carter & Jennifer R. Racine, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: An Update, 76‐OCT WIS. LAW. 20 (2003); Judy A. Clausen, Eleventh Circuit Review: Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A. ‐‐ The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance, 11 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 53 (2009); Joann K. Coston, Embrace the New, But Don’t Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the New Internet Age, 34 S.U. L. REV. 249 (2007); Emily Ekland, Note, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380 (2012); David M. Fritch, Beyond Zippo’s “Sliding Scale”‐‐The Third Circuit Clarifies Internet‐based Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 49 VILLANOVA L. REV. 931 (2004); Richard K. Greenstein, The Action Bias in American Law: Internet Jurisdiction and the Triumph of Zippo Dot Com, 80 TEMPLE L. REV. 21 (2007); Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2371 (2006); Lora M. Jennings, Finding Legal Certainty for E‐Commerce: Traditional Personal Jurisdiction Analysis and the Scope of the Zippo Sliding Scale, 44 WASHBURN L.J. 381 (2005); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Dennis T. Rice & Julia Gladstone, An Assessment of the Effects Test in Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 58 BUS. LAWYER 601 (2003). 34 Joshua Beldner, How Technologically Savvy Do You Have to Be to Apply Zippo? An Approach to Internet Personal Jurisdiction After Fancaster and Edvisors, 17 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 318, 321 (2011); Eugenia G. Carter & Jennifer R.
14
personal jurisdiction analysis in Internet cases,35 more attempt to clarify where and how Zippo should
apply.36 The authors of these articles note that some courts apply the Zippo standard in general
personal jurisdiction cases.37 Many of these authors argue that this is inappropriate and “inconsistent
with the Supreme Court's general [personal] jurisdiction doctrine and under‐protective of due process
rights in the general [personal] jurisdiction context.”38 Other authors believe Zippo has caused courts to
lose sight of “the traditional principles used in personal jurisdiction analysis.”39 They view the Zippo
sliding scale as a “useful tool” in personal jurisdiction analysis, not as a “replacement for the traditional
and far‐reaching analysis required in personal jurisdiction determinations.”40
b. ArticlesCriticalofZippo
A substantial number of the articles discussing Zippo are quite critical of its sliding scale test.41 Many of
these scholars argue that Zippo changes a “core requirement” of personal jurisdiction analysis—
Racine, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: An Update, 76‐OCT WIS. LAW. 20, 21 (2003); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007). 35 Richard K. Greenstein, The Action Bias in American Law: Internet Jurisdiction and the Triumph of Zippo Dot Com, 80 TEMPLE L. REV. 21, 23 (2007). 36 Judy A. Clausen, Eleventh Circuit Review: Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A. ‐‐ The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance, 11 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 53 (2009); Joann K. Coston, Embrace the New, But Don’t Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the New Internet Age, 34 S.U. L. REV. 249 (2007); Emily Ekland, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380 (2012); David M. Fritch, Beyond Zippo’s “Sliding Scale”‐‐The Third Circuit Clarifies Internet‐based Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 49 VILLANOVA L. REV. 931 (2004); Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2371 (2006); Lora M. Jennings, Finding Legal Certainty for E‐Commerce: Traditional Personal Jurisdiction Analysis and the Scope of the Zippo Sliding Scale, 44 WASHBURN L.J. 381 (2005). 37 Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2371, 2371 (2006). 38 Id. See also Judy A. Clausen, Eleventh Circuit Review: Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A. ‐‐ The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance, 11 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 53 (2009); Lora M. Jennings, Finding Legal Certainty for E‐Commerce: Traditional Personal Jurisdiction Analysis and the Scope of the Zippo Sliding Scale, 44 WASHBURN L.J. 381 (2005). 39 Joann K. Coston, Embrace the New, But Don’t Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the New Internet Age, 34 S.U. L. REV. 249, 250 (2007). 40 David M. Fritch, Beyond Zippo’s “Sliding Scale”‐‐The Third Circuit Clarifies Internet‐based Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 49 VILLANOVA L. REV. 931, 954 (2004). 41 Bunmi Awoyemi, Zippo is Dying, Should It Be Dead? The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction by U.S. Federal Courts Over Non‐Domiciliary Defendants in Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Arising out of Cyberspace, 9 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 37 (2005); Catherine Ross Dunham, Zippo‐ing the Wrong Way: How the Internet has Misdirected the Federal Courts in Their Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 43 U.S.F. L. REV. 559 (2009); Emily Ekland, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380 (2012); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Pavan Mehrotra, Back to the Basics: Why Traditional Principles of Personal Jurisdiction Are Effective Today and Why Zippo Needs to Go, 12 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 229 (2010); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319 (2003); Dennis T. Yokoyama,
15
purposeful availment—for the worse by adding an additional step riddled with ambiguity.42 These
authors find the distinctions made between passive and interactive websites unclear and not useful,
particularly when a website falls somewhere between the two extremes.43 Other critiques include one
author who argues that Zippo “undermine[s] the Calder ‘effects’ test”44 and another author who argues
that the sliding scale test fails to put “ordinary citizen defendants on notice” that they may be subject to
personal jurisdiction in a “far away forum.”45
Although many of the authors in this cluster of articles want courts to return to traditional “non‐
Internet” principles of personal jurisdiction,46 a few would have courts use a modified version of the
Zippo sliding scale.47 For example, one author would “merge the Zippo sliding scale with a sliding scale
of efforts to limit contact with the relevant [territorial] jurisdiction.”48 Another author would combine
You Can’t Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147 (2005). 42 Emily Ekland, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380, 404 (2012). See also Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507, 1511 (2007); Pavan Mehrotra, Back to the Basics: Why Traditional Principles of Personal Jurisdiction Are Effective Today and Why Zippo Needs to Go, 12 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 229, 230 (2010); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159, 186 (2011); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71, 75 (2006). 43 Bunmi Awoyemi, Zippo is Dying, Should It Be Dead? The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction by U.S. Federal Courts Over Non‐Domiciliary Defendants in Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Arising out of Cyberspace, 9 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 37, 61‐62 (2005); Catherine Ross Dunham, Zippo‐ing the Wrong Way: How the Internet has Misdirected the Federal Courts in Their Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 43 U.S.F. L. REV. 559, 560 (2009); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507, 1511 (2007); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71, 75 (2006); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319, 321 (2003). 44 A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71, 75 (2006). 45 Emily Ekland, Note, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380, 404‐05 (2012). 46 Bunmi Awoyemi, Zippo is Dying, Should It Be Dead? The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction by U.S. Federal Courts Over Non‐Domiciliary Defendants in Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Arising out of Cyberspace, 9 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 37, 61‐62 (2005); Pavan Mehrotra, Back to the Basics: Why Traditional Principles of Personal Jurisdiction Are Effective Today and Why Zippo Needs to Go, 12 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 229, 231 (2010); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319, 322 (2003). 47 Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507, 1541 (2007); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159, 189 (2011); Dennis T. Yokoyama, You Can’t Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147, 1150 (2005). 48 Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507, 1541 (2007).
16
the Zippo sliding scale with states’ “doing business” long‐arm statutes, thereby requiring courts to
explicitly analyze whether the non‐resident “does business” in the forum.49
2. InternationalCases
Another cluster of articles examines two landmark international cases: Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick
and Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisime et L’Antisemitisme. While personal jurisdiction was a
fundamental issue in each of these two cases, most of the scholarship focuses more broadly on all three
jurisdictional issues and considers how personal jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement issues are
connected.
i. DowJones&Co.Inc.v.Gutnick50
Eleven articles focus on the High Court of Australia’s decision in Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick.51 In
Gutnick, Australian businessman Joseph Gutnick brought a libel action in the Supreme Court of Victoria
against Dow Jones & Co. Inc. (“Dow Jones”) for an article that appeared in the Barron’s Online section of
its WSJ.com website.52 The offending article was uploaded to WSJ.com via Dow Jones’ servers in New
Jersey and was accessible only to Dow Jones’ subscribers, approximately 300 of whom were located in
Victoria, Australia.53 Dow Jones entered a conditional appearance and sought an order to set service
aside or permanently stay further proceedings in the matter.54 The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed
the application, finding that the article was published in Victoria, that Victorian law applied and that
Victoria was not a “clearly inappropriate forum” for trial of the proceeding.55 Dow Jones appealed all
the way to the High Court of Australia, arguing that the article was published where it was uploaded in
New Jersey, not where it was downloaded in Victoria.56 Although the High Court explicitly recognized
49 Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159, 186 (2011). 50 (2002) 210 C.L.R. 575 (Austl.), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html (last visited December 3, 2012). 51 Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006); Peter Bartlett, Gutnick Shows the Need for New International Jurisdictional Principles, 20‐WTR COMM. LAW. 16 (2003); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Blake Cooper, The U.S. Libel Law Conundrum and the Necessity of Defensive Corporate Measures in Lessening International Internet Libel Liability, 21 CONN. J. INT'L L. 127 (2005); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Nathan W. Garnett, Dow Jones & Co. V. Gutnick: Will Australia’s Long Jurisdictional Reach Chill Internet Speech World‐Wide?, 13 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 61 (2004); Uta Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 387 (2004); Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004); David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). 52 Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, (2002) 210 C.L.R. 575 (Austl.), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html (last visited December 3, 2012). 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 Id.
17
the “uniquely broad reach” of the Internet, it rejected Dow Jones’ argument and unanimously affirmed
the judgment of the Victoria court.57
Almost all of the articles discussing Gutnick concentrate on its implications for jurisdictional law
generally, particularly the potential for widespread liability for Internet publishers.58 Most of the articles
in this group reflect on how the extension of personal jurisdiction implicates significant choice of law
issues. A few are especially critical of Gutnick.59 For example, one author argues that the High Court’s
ruling is “overbroad and not sufficiently considerate of international Internet policy considerations
related to speech.”60 Another author similarly believes the Court should have inquired into the extent of
Dow Jones contacts with Victoria, even though the author agrees that it was correct for the Court to
exercise personal jurisdiction over Dow Jones.61 Other authors focus on the role of public policy in the
decision,62 how subsequent cases and legislation have dealt with Internet defamation63 or ways U.S.
companies can reduce their exposure to liability under foreign laws.64
ii. Yahoo!,Inc.v.LaLigueContreleRacisimeetL'Antisemitisme
Twenty articles analyze the various decisions in the Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisime et
L’Antisemitisme (“Yahoo!”) litigation.65 The Yahoo! litigation began in France when two French civil
57 Id. 58 Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006); Peter Bartlett, Gutnick Shows the Need for New International Jurisdictional Principles, 20‐WTR COMM. LAW. 16 (2003); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Blake Cooper, The U.S. Libel Law Conundrum and the Necessity of Defensive Corporate Measures in Lessening International Internet Libel Liability, 21 CONN. J. INT'L L. 127 (2005); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Nathan W. Garnett, Dow Jones & Co. V. Gutnick: Will Australia’s Long Jurisdictional Reach Chill Internet Speech World‐Wide?, 13 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 61 (2004); Uta Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 387 (2004); Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004). 59 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Nathan W. Garnett, Dow Jones & Co. V. Gutnick: Will Australia’s Long Jurisdictional Reach Chill Internet Speech World‐Wide?, 13 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 61 (2004); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004). 60 Nathan W. Garnett, Dow Jones & Co. V. Gutnick: Will Australia’s Long Jurisdictional Reach Chill Internet Speech World‐Wide?, 13 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 61, 62 (2004). 61 Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199, 232 (2004). 62 Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004). 63 David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010). 64 Blake Cooper, The U.S. Libel Law Conundrum and the Necessity of Defensive Corporate Measures in Lessening International Internet Libel Liability, 21 CONN. J. INT'L L. 127, 129 (2005). 65 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Ayelet Ben‐Ezer & Ariel L. Bendor, Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review, and International Conflict of Laws, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 2089 (2004); Matthew Chivvis,
18
rights organizations—la Ligue Contre le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme (“LICRA”) and l'Union des Etudiants
Juifs de France (“UEJF”)—filed suit against Yahoo! and its French subsidiary, Yahoo! France, for allowing
access in France to Nazi memorabilia sold on the company’s auction website.66 It is a crime in France to
publicly display “any uniform, insignia, or emblem of any organization or person responsible for crimes
against humanity.”67 The French court sided with LICRA and UEJF and ordered Yahoo! to take all
available measures to block user access from France to the Nazi memorabilia68 and ordered a fine for
each day the offending content remained accessible in France after a three‐month implementation
period.69
Although Yahoo! initially objected to the French court’s orders, it did not appeal the French decision.70
Instead Yahoo! filed suit against LICRA and UEJF in the Northern District of California, seeking a
declaratory judgment that the orders of the French court could not be enforced in the United States.71
The district court considered LICRA’s and UEJF’s contacts with California—a cease and desist letter, the
use of the U.S. Marshalls Service to serve process, and a request to the French court that Yahoo! comply
with French law—and determined that the organizations purposefully availed themselves of California
law.72 The district court accordingly held that it had personal jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF,73 found
Reexamining the Yahoo! Litigations: Toward an Effects Test for Determining International Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 699 (2007); Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Christine Duh, Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 359 (2002); Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized ???, 31 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 225 (2003); Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003); Howard J. Grooters, Territorial Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 4 OR. REV. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Rinat Hadas, International Internet Jurisdiction: Whose Law is Right?, 15 FLA. J. INT'L L. 299 (2002); Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 267 (2006); Daniel Arthur Laprès, Of Yahoos and Dilemmas, 3 CHI. J. INT'L L. 409 (2002); Michelle Love, International Jurisdiction over the Internet: A Case Analysis of Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, 17 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 261 (2003); Andreas Manolopoulos, Raising ‘Cyber‐Borders’: The Interaction Between Law and Technology, 11 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 40 (2003); Caitlin T. Murphy, International Law and the Internet: An Ill‐Suited Match, 25 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 405 (2002); Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002); Robert T. Razzano, Error 404 Jurisdiction Not Found: The Ninth Circuit Frustrates the Efforts of Yahoo! Inc. to Declare a Speech‐restrictive Foreign Judgment Unenforceable, 73 U. CIN. L. REV. 1743 (2005); Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo! and Democracy on the Internet, 42 JURIMETRICS J. 261 (2002); Mathias Reimann, Introduction: The Yahoo! Case and Conflict of Laws in the Cyberage, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 663 (2003); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005); Robert Ware III, The Use of Jurisdictional Arbitrage to Support the Strategic Interest of the Firm, 38 U. TOL. L. REV. 307 (2006). 66 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 2006). 67 Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo! and Democracy on the Internet, 42 JURIMETRICS J. 261, 264 (2002). See also C. PÉN. art. R‐645‐1. 68 Joel R. Reidenberg, Technology and Internet Jurisdiction, 153 UNIV. OF PENN. L. REV. 1951, 1959 (2005). 69 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1185 (2001). 70 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir. 2006). 71 Id. 72 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1174 (N.D.Cal. 2001). 73 Id. at 1180.
19
that the suit was ripe for adjudication and concluded that “the First Amendment preclude[d]
enforcement [of the French orders] within the United States.”74
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment on appeal, finding—at least initially—
that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF.75 The appellate court
however reached a somewhat different result upon rehearing the case en banc.76 In the Ninth Circuit’s
final, per curiam ruling, a majority of eight judges determined that the district court had personal
jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF.77 Of that majority, however, only five believed the case was ripe for
adjudication.78 A majority, however, of six judges dismissed the case, but for different reasons: three for
lack of personal jurisdiction and three for lack of ripeness.79
The scholarship discussing the Yahoo! litigation is primarily concerned with the impact these judgments
will have on Internet entities and sovereign nations. More than half of the articles surveyed were
written before the Ninth Circuit issued either of its rulings.80 These articles, in particular, advocate
finding an international solution to the enforcement problem presented in Yahoo! through international
regulation81 or through filtering technologies.82 A significant number of articles, alternatively, explicitly
74 Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1194 (N.D.Cal.2001). 75 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 379 F.3d 1120, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004). 76 See Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1201; Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 399 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) (granting rehearing en banc). 77 Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1201. 78 Id. 79 Id. 80 Ayelet Ben‐Ezer & Ariel L. Bendor, Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review, and International Conflict of Laws, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 2089 (2004); Christine Duh, Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 359 (2002); Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized ???, 31 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 225 (2003); Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003); Howard J. Grooters, Territorial Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 4 OR. REV. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Rinat Hadas, International Internet Jurisdiction: Whose Law is Right?, 15 FLA. J. INT'L L. 299 (2002); Daniel Arthur Laprès, Of Yahoos and Dilemmas, 3 CHI. J. INT'L L. 409 (2002); Michelle Love, International Jurisdiction over the Internet: A Case Analysis of Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, 17 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 261 (2003); Andreas Manolopoulos, Raising ‘Cyber‐Borders’: The Interaction Between Law and Technology, 11 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 40 (2003); Caitlin T. Murphy, International Law and the Internet: An Ill‐Suited Match, 25 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 405 (2002); Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002); Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo! and Democracy on the Internet, 42 JURIMETRICS J. 261 (2002); Mathias Reimann, Introduction: The Yahoo! Case and Conflict of Laws in the Cyberage, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 663 (2003); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005); Robert Ware III, The Use of Jurisdictional Arbitrage to Support the Strategic Interest of the Firm, 38 U. TOL. L. REV. 307 (2006). 81 Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003); Howard J. Grooters, Territorial Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 4 OR. REV. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Michelle Love, International Jurisdiction over the Internet: A Case Analysis of Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, 17 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 261 (2003); Caitlin T. Murphy, International Law and the Internet: An Ill‐Suited Match, 25 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 405 (2002); Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002). See also Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 267 (2006) (writing after the Ninth Circuit rulings).
20
support or condemn the French and American courts’ decisions to assert personal jurisdiction over
Yahoo! and LICRA and UEJF, respectively.83 Others encourage the use of an effects test, like Calder’s, to
determine whether personal jurisdiction exists,84 or offer more straightforward advice, such as
“becom[ing] familiar with and attempt[ing] to conform to” the laws of countries in which one intends to
do business.85
B. PersonalJurisdictionIndependent of the cluster of articles that addressed personal jurisdiction in the context of a particular
case, there is another important set of literature that focuses on personal jurisdiction more broadly.
These articles analyze various tests that have been developed and applied by courts to respond to
questions about personal jurisdiction in Internet disputes. Some of the articles in this grouping argue
that the established tests are problematic and new tests should be developed. Others suggest that
traditional legal tools can be used to determine personal jurisdiction in the Internet context.
1. CourtsShouldCreateNewTestsforPersonalJurisdiction
Several articles argue that U.S. courts need to develop a new test to determine personal jurisdiction in
cases arising out of online behavior.86 This group highlights both how the current precedents are
inadequate and how the law should evolve to address personal jurisdiction issues.
82 Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized ???, 31 GA. J. INT'L &
COMP. L. 225 (2003); Andreas Manolopoulos, Raising ‘Cyber‐Borders’: The Interaction Between Law and Technology, 11 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 40 (2003); Caitlin T. Murphy, International Law and the Internet: An Ill‐Suited Match, 25 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 405 (2002). See also Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005) (writing after the initial Ninth Circuit ruling). 83 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Matthew Chivvis, Reexamining the Yahoo! Litigations: Toward an Effects Test for Determining International Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 699 (2007); Christine Duh, Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 359 (2002); Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 267 (2006); Daniel Arthur Laprès, Of Yahoos and Dilemmas, 3 CHI. J. INT'L L. 409 (2002); Michelle Love, International Jurisdiction over the Internet: A Case Analysis of Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, 17 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 261 (2003); Robert T. Razzano, Error 404 Jurisdiction Not Found: The Ninth Circuit Frustrates the Efforts of Yahoo! Inc. to Declare a Speech‐restrictive Foreign Judgment Unenforceable, 73 U. CIN. L. REV. 1743 (2005); Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo! and Democracy on the Internet, 42 JURIMETRICS J. 261 (2002). 84 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Matthew Chivvis, Reexamining the Yahoo! Litigations: Toward an Effects Test for Determining International Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 699 (2007). See also Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005) (finding that an effects test is one acceptable method “for conferring jurisdiction over Internet content and regulating access”). 85 Christine Duh, Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 359 (2002). See also Robert Ware III, The Use of Jurisdictional Arbitrage to Support the Strategic Interest of the Firm, 38 U. TOL. L. REV. 307 (2006). 86 C. Douglas Floyd & Shima Baradaran‐Robison, Toward a Unified Test of Personal Jurisdiction in an Era of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance of Purpose and Effects, 81 IND. L.J. 601 (2006); Jenny L. Grantz, A Culture Without Consequences? Redefining Purposeful Availment for Wrongful Online Conduct, 63 HASTINGS L.J. 1135 (2012); Derek J. Illar, Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web, 88 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 1 (2010); Kyle
21
The articles first articulate a number of reasons that the current tests are ineffective. They argue, for
example, that applying the Zippo and Calder tests to one set of facts can lead to differing outcomes.87
Some authors also suggest that courts are often unclear about when to apply one test or another. Still
others suggest that tests that rely on a targeting analysis often do not adequately address the harms
that can arise from Internet transactions.88
The articles then offer a few different proposals for new tests that courts could apply. Several authors
advocate for a reasonable foreseeability test, arguing that personal jurisdiction should be found when a
defendant knows or should know that her action could cause harm within the forum state.89 A few
others suggest that the Zippo and Calder tests should be combined requiring courts to consider both
what type of activity the website engaged in and whether there was an expected effect within the forum
state.90 Finally, one author takes a global perspective and argues that the personal jurisdictional
standards in the U.S. should be adjusted to better address international litigants.91
D. Johnson, Measuring Minimum Contacts Over the Internet: How Courts Analyze Internet Communications to Acquire Personal Jurisdiction Over the Out‐of‐State Person, 46 U. LOUISVILLE L. REV. 313 (2007); Allison MacDonald, YouTubing Down the Stream of Commerce: Eliminating the Express Aiming Requirement for Personal Jurisdiction in User‐Generated Internet Content Cases, 19 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 519 (2009); Andrea M. Matwyshyn, Of Nodes and Power Laws: A Network Theory Approach to Internet Jurisdiction Through Data Privacy, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 493 (2004); Note, No Bad Puns: A Different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1821 (2003); Kendrick D. Nguyen, Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness, 83 B.U.L. REV. 253 (2003); Amanda Reid, Operationalizing the Law of Jurisdiction: Where in the World Can I Be Sued for Operating a World Wide Web Page?, 8 COMM. L. & POL’Y 227 (2003); Carlos J. R. Salvado, An Effective Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine for the Internet, 12 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 75 (2003); Thomas Schultz, Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface, 19 EUR. J. INT'L L. 799 (2008); Jamie Spataro, Personal Jurisdiction Over The Internet: How International Is Today's Shoe, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 2 (2002). 87 C. Douglas Floyd & Shima Baradaran‐Robison, Toward a Unified Test of Personal Jurisdiction in an Era of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance of Purpose and Effects, 81 IND. L.J. 601 (2006); Jenny L. Grantz, A Culture Without Consequences? Redefining Purposeful Availment for Wrongful Online Conduct, 63 HASTINGS L.J. 1135 (2012); Amanda Reid, Operationalizing the Law of Jurisdiction: Where in the World Can I Be Sued for Operating a World Wide Web Page?, 8 COMM. L. & POL’Y 227 (2003). 88 Allison MacDonald, YouTubing Down the Stream of Commerce: Eliminating the Express Aiming Requirement for Personal Jurisdiction in User‐Generated Internet Content Cases, 19 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 519 (2009). 89 C. Douglas Floyd & Shima Baradaran‐Robison, Toward a Unified Test of Personal Jurisdiction in an Era of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance of Purpose and Effects, 81 IND. L.J. 601 (2006); Derek J. Illar, Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web, 88 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 1 (2010); Allison MacDonald, YouTubing Down the Stream of Commerce: Eliminating the Express Aiming Requirement for Personal Jurisdiction in User‐Generated Internet Content Cases, 19 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 519 (2009). 90 Amanda Reid, Operationalizing the Law of Jurisdiction: Where in the World Can I Be Sued for Operating a World Wide Web Page?, 8 COMM. L. & POL’Y 227 (2003); Carlos J. R. Salvado, An Effective Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine for the Internet, 12 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 75 (2003). 91 Jamie Spataro, Personal Jurisdiction Over The Internet: How International Is Today's Shoe, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. &
POL'Y 2 (2002).
22
2. SufficientLegalToolsExistforAnalyzingPersonalJurisdictionIssues
Another group of articles argues that the established legal rules and doctrines can adequately address
the personal jurisdiction issues that arise in Internet disputes.92 The majority of these articles focuses on
the United States and finds that the traditional due process analysis used by courts to assess personal
jurisdiction can be applied adequately to online transactions and disputes. The literature suggests
several reasons why traditional judicial rules and tests will work, including (1) the Internet is not unique
since web actors still exist in physical space and conduct is still often targeted at people in specific
geographic regions,93 (2) courts are familiar with the due process requirements and can adequately
apply the tests to new situations, and (3) judicial application of the traditional rules allows the standards
to evolve gradually over time as the technology changes.94 Some articles view the Zippo and Calder tests
as examples of how courts appropriately applied traditional doctrines to the Internet,95 while others
suggest that the Zippo and Calder tests should be abandoned and the basic minimum contacts and
reasonableness standards should be applied without revision.96 Finally some of these articles suggest
92 Oren Bigos, Jurisdiction Over Cross‐Border Wrongs on the Internet, 54 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 585 (2005); Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a “Targeting” Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E‐Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT’L L. REV. 241 (2006); Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L &
COMP. L. 243 (2002); William E. Frazier, Jr., When the International Shoe Doesn’t Fit: Online Auctions and the Jurisdictional Problems that Follow, 25 THOMAS JEFFERSON L. REV. 493 (2003); Tricia Leigh Gray, Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: The Classic Jurisdiction Analysis in a New Setting, 1 J. HIGH TECH. L. 85 (2002); Kendrick D. Nguyen, Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness, 83 B.U.L. REV. 253 (2003); Erin F. Norris, Why the Internet Isn’t Special: Restoring Predictability to Personal Jurisdiction, 53 ARIZ. L. REV. 1013 (2011); Teresa Scassa and Robert J. Currie, New First Principles: Assessing the Internet’s Challenges to Jurisdiction, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1017 (2011); Natalya Shmulevich, A Minimum Contacts and Fairness Examination of Personal Jurisdiction over Providers of Free Downloads on the Internet, 13‐SUM MEDIA L. & POL'Y 55 (2004); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, 73 U. CHI. L. REV. 617 (2006); Allan R. Stein, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Seeing Due Process Through the Lens of Regulatory Precision, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 411 (2004); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319 (2003); Dennis T. Yokoyama, You Can’t Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147 (2005). 93 Tricia Leigh Gray, Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: The Classic Jurisdiction Analysis in a New Setting, 1 J. HIGH TECH. L. 85 (2002); Kendrick D. Nguyen, Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness, 83 B.U.L. REV. 253 (2003). 94 Kendrick D. Nguyen, Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness, 83 B.U.L. REV. 253 (2003). 95 Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243 (2002); William E. Frazier, Jr., When the International Shoe Doesn’t Fit: Online Auctions and the Jurisdictional Problems that Follow, 25 THOMAS JEFFERSON L. REV. 493 (2003); Erin F. Norris, Why the Internet Isn’t Special: Restoring Predictability to Personal Jurisdiction, 53 ARIZ. L. REV. 1013 (2011); 96 Natalya Shmulevich, A Minimum Contacts and Fairness Examination of Personal Jurisdiction over Providers of Free Downloads on the Internet, 13‐SUM MEDIA L. & POL'Y 55 (2004); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006); Allan R. Stein, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Seeing Due Process Through the Lens of Regulatory Precision, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 411 (2004); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319 (2003).
23
that the basic due process analysis is a good starting point for new rules and that they can be adjusted
and modified to address the changing technology.97
C. ChoiceofLawSome of the literature focuses specifically on the choice of law98 issues that arise in Internet disputes.99
A number of the articles in this cluster use conflicts regarding defamation and speech law to illustrate
the choice of law dilemma.100 This group of articles generally examines how the choice of law analysis
relates to the other jurisdictional issues, considers how choice of law issues impact the international
community and suggests new ways to address choice of law problems.
A few articles explore how the choice of law analysis implicates and impacts questions about personal
jurisdiction.101 These articles suggest that choice of law cannot be addressed in isolation, and that
determinations about applicable law should also guide the resolution of personal jurisdiction questions.
For example, one article asserts that courts need to consider whether the application of foreign law will
create conflict with national constitutional law and, if such a conflict is likely, personal jurisdiction should
97 William E. Frazier, Jr., When the International Shoe Doesn’t Fit: Online Auctions and the Jurisdictional Problems that Follow, 25 THOMAS JEFFERSON L. REV. 493 (2003); Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319 (2003). 98 “Choice of law” is the terminology used in the United States to denote the analysis a court undertakes to determine which state’s law it will apply to a dispute. In Europe this analysis is referred to “private international law.” The terms can be used interchangeably, but this report will use the United States terminology as the default. 99 Ayelet Ben‐Ezer & Ariel L. Bendor, Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review, and International Conflict of Laws, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 2089 (2004); Paul Schiff Berman, Global Legal Pluralism, 80 S. CAL. L. REV. 1155 (2007); Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819 (2005); Michael Bogdan, Web‐Sites, Establishment and Private International Law, 17 K.C.L.J. 97 (2006); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Joseph A. Cannataci & Jeanne Pia Mifsud‐Bonnici, Weaving the Mesh: Finding Remedies in Cyberspace, 21 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 59 (2007); Philip Adam Davis, The Defamation of Choice‐of‐Law in Cyberspace: Countering the View that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is Inadequate to Navigate the Borderless Reaches of the Intangible Frontier, 54 FED. COMM. L.J. 339 (2002); Uta Kohl, Eggs, Jurisdiction, and the Internet, 51 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 555 (2002); Milena Sterio, Clash of the Titans: Collisions of Economic Regulations and the Need to Harmonize Prescriptive Jurisdiction Rules, 13 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 95 (2007); Robert Uerpmann‐Wittzack, Principles of International Internet Law, 11 GERMAN L.J. 1245 (2010); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, An Introduction to Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace, 15 J.L. & INFO. SCI. 50 (2004); Steven R. Swanson, Google Sets Sail: Ocean‐Base Server Farms and International Law, 43 CONN. L. REV. 709 (2011); Peter P. Swire, Elephants and Mice Revisited: Law and Choice of Law on the Internet, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1975 (2005); Horatia Muir Watt, Yahoo! Cyber‐Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates?, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 673 (2003); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). 100 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Philip Adam Davis, The Defamation of Choice‐of‐Law in Cyberspace: Countering the View that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is Inadequate to Navigate the Borderless Reaches of the Intangible Frontier, 54 FED. COMM. L.J. 339 (2002); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). 101 Ayelet Ben‐Ezer & Ariel L. Bendor, Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review, and International Conflict of Laws, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 2089 (2004); Horatia Muir Watt, Yahoo! Cyber‐Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates?, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 673 (2003); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003).
24
potentially be withheld.102 Similarly, another article argues that courts should consider whether the
choice of law issues result from conflicts about important national values before determining whether
personal jurisdiction is proper.103
A subset of articles in this group suggests that courts should strive to create international harmony
when addressing choice of law.104 These articles advocate that judges should consider the international
impact of their decisions and recognize how compromise may be beneficial in the long run. In addition,
a few of these articles suggest that either choice of law standards should be harmonized or an
international arbitration scheme should be implemented.
Finally, several of the articles argue that choice of law issues are minimized by new legal strategies.105
Authors suggest that new filtering technology or online contracts can help to mitigate a large number of
choice of law problems.
D. ProposedApproachestoJurisdictionIssuesA sizeable group of articles proposes various approaches that scholars think courts and policy makers
should consider for the resolution of jurisdictional issues. Some articles suggest new tests, rules or
governing bodies while others offer current regulation for application to new Internet jurisdictional
problems. This literature often examines all three aspects of jurisdiction (i.e. personal jurisdiction,
applicable law and enforcement), discusses how the issues impact one another and suggests new ways
that their connectedness should be addressed. Below is a summary of the various arguments put forth
in this literature.
1. NewLegalToolsareNeededtoAnalyzeInternetJurisdiction
A subset of these articles argues that the Internet presents new jurisdictional hurdles requiring new
legal tests and tools.106 These authors emphasize the broader reach of communications over the
Internet to larger audiences and wider geographic regions as compared to any previous technology.
102 Ayelet Ben‐Ezer & Ariel L. Bendor, Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review, and International Conflict of Laws, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 2089 (2004). 103 Horatia Muir Watt, Yahoo! Cyber‐Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates?, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 673 (2003). 104 Paul Schiff Berman, Global Legal Pluralism, 80 S. CAL. L. REV. 1155 (2007); Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819 (2005); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Milena Sterio, Clash of the Titans: Collisions of Economic Regulations and the Need to Harmonize Prescriptive Jurisdiction Rules, 13 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 95 (2007). 105 Joel R. Reidenberg, Technology and Internet Jurisdiction, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1951 (2005); Peter P. Swire, Elephants and Mice Revisited: Law and Choice of Law on the Internet, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1975 (2005); Horatia Muir Watt, Yahoo! Cyber‐Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates?, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 673 (2003). 106 Frank Arenas, Cyberspace Jurisdiction and the Implications of Sealand, 88 IOWA L. REV. 1165 (2003); Lindy Burris Arwood, Personal Jurisdiction: Are the Federal Rules Keeping Up With (Internet) Traffic?, 39 VALPARAISO L. REV. 967 (2005); Ray August, International Cyber‐Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 39 Am. Bus. L.J. 531 (2002); John Di Bari, A Survey of the Internet Jurisdiction Universe, 18 N.Y. INT’L L. REV. 123 (Winter 2005); David G. Post, Against “Against Cyberanarchy”, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1365 (2002).
25
They argue that this reach is so unique that it requires a rethinking of the traditional rules about
personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and enforcement of judgments.
2. GeolocationTechnologiesareaSolution
A sizeable group of articles advocates placing digital borders on the Internet via geolocation
technologies that customize content and control access to websites according to a user’s location.107
The authors contend that these technologies make it “feasible to confine Internet regulation to a
particular location”108 and create a “jurisdictionally‐differentiated regulatory regime.”109 Such a regime,
they argue, would provide the best way to mitigate the extraterritorial effects of state‐specific laws and
prevent the rise of universal personal jurisdiction over Internet actors.
Most of the authors focus their analysis on how governments and private actors, like Internet Service
Providers (“ISPs”), can use geolocation technologies to establish their own digital territory or limit their
liability.110 Their discussions range from suggestions for broad regulatory schemes,111 to industry‐
107 Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized ???, 31 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 225 (2003); Tim Gerlach, Using Internet Content Filters to Create E‐Borders to Aid in International Choice of Law and Jurisdiction, 26 WHITTIER L. REV. 899 (2005); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010); Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003); Thomas Schultz, Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface, 19 EUR. J. INT'L L. 799 (2008); Svantesson, Geo‐location Technologies and Other Means of Placing Borders on the ‘Borderless’ Internet, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 101 (2004); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, “Imagine There’s No Countries”: Geo‐Identification, the Law, and the Not‐so‐Borderless Internet, 10 NO. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2007); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005); Tracie E. Wandell, Geolocation and Jurisdiction: From Purposeful Availment to Avoidance and Targeting on the Internet, 16 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 275 (2011). 108 Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2, 3 (2007). 109 Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41, 44 (2010). 110 See, e.g., Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Tim Gerlach, Using Internet Content Filters to Create E‐Borders to Aid in International Choice of Law and Jurisdiction, 26 WHITTIER L. REV. 899 (2005); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010); Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003); Thomas Schultz, Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface, 19 EUR. J. INT'L L. 799 (2008); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Geo‐location Technologies and Other Means of Placing Borders on the ‘Borderless’ Internet, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 101 (2004); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, “Imagine There’s No Countries”: Geo‐Identification, the Law, and the Not‐so‐Borderless Internet, 10 NO. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2007); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005). 111 Tim Gerlach, Using Internet Content Filters to Create E‐Borders to Aid in International Choice of Law and Jurisdiction, 26 WHITTIER L. REV. 899 (2005).
26
specific solutions,112 to aggressive technological strategies.113 Other authors concentrate on personal
jurisdiction specifically and argue that courts should explicitly consider the use of geolocation
technologies in reaching their decisions.114 One author explores in‐depth how geolocation
technologies—and the jurisdictional certainty many believe they bring—can be easily circumvented.115
Another subset of these articles argues, however, that the advantages of geolocation technologies are
not without cost. Many of these authors identify drawbacks to implementing these technologies.116
Chief among the drawbacks are the potential for abuse, particularly the ability to repress speech
online,117 and the financial burden of investing in and maintaining the technologies.118 Some also
believe geolocation technologies threaten to change the open‐nature of the Internet.119 Authors
consider these concerns to be substantial. Nevertheless, none of the authors contend that these
drawbacks outweigh the benefits of geolocation technologies.
112 Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010). 113 Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003). 114 Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006); Tracie E. Wandell, Geolocation and Jurisdiction: From Purposeful Availment to Avoidance and Targeting on the Internet, 16 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 275 (2011). 115 Marketa Trimble, The Future of Cybertravel: Legal Implications of the Evasion of Geolocation, 22 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 567 (2012). 116 Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Geo‐location Technologies and Other Means of Placing Borders on the ‘Borderless’ Internet, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 101 (2004); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, “Imagine There’s No Countries”: Geo‐Identification, the Law, and the Not‐so‐Borderless Internet, 10 NO. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2007); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005); Tracie E. Wandell, Geolocation and Jurisdiction: From Purposeful Availment to Avoidance and Targeting on the Internet, 16 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 275 (2011). 117 Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283, 302 (2005). 118 Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41, 72 (2010); Tracie E. Wandell, Geolocation and Jurisdiction: From Purposeful Availment to Avoidance and Targeting on the Internet, 16 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 275, 298 (2011). 119 See Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41, 44 (2010); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Geo‐location Technologies and Other Means of Placing Borders on the ‘Borderless’ Internet, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 101, 131‐32 (2004); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, “Imagine There’s No Countries”: Geo‐Identification, the Law, and the Not‐so‐Borderless Internet, 10 NO. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1, 20 (2007); Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283, 302‐03 (2005).
27
3. GeographicBordersShouldNotApplyinCyberspace/TreatCyberspaceasItsOwnSeparatePlace
A group of articles examines whether the Internet should be treated as a separate space and remove all
preconceived notions of jurisdiction tied to physical space when considering a new legal framework for
Internet claims. Two articles in this group suggest that borders—whether they are created by
geolocation technologies or by legal principles—should not exist on the Internet.120 One of these
authors argues that the geographically‐oriented contacts and effects tests that dominate personal
jurisdiction analysis should be replaced with a standard that captures a truer picture of Internet
activity.121 The author proposes using a “cosmopolitan approach” that would “allow us to think of
community not as a geographically determined territory circumscribed by fixed boundaries, but as
‘articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings.’”122 In other words, the
author’s framework would root personal jurisdiction in the development of an online community.123 The
other author is more concerned with the negative effects of technological and legal borders on the
Internet.124 This author submits that these borders are making the Internet less open and less global
and recommends treating the Internet as a separate legal space.125 In this space, he argues, national
laws would be replaced by a uniform code and a separate judiciary or arbitration system—at least for
specific areas of law, such as defamation.126
The other two articles refute the use of physical space as an adequate metaphor for the Internet.127
4. EstablishaUniform,InternationalRegulatoryScheme
There is a small trend in the literature to suggest some type of uniform international regulatory scheme
to address the personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues arising from international transactions over
the Internet.128 Some of these articles advocate that international norms should be developed by the
120 Paul Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 311 (2002); Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819 (2005); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Borders On, or Borders Around the Future of the Internet, 16 ALB. L.J. SCI. &
TECH. 343 (2006). 121 Paul Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 311, 321‐23 (2002). See also B Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819, 1821 (2005). 122 Paul Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 311, 322 (2002). 123 Id. at 322‐23. 124 Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Borders On, or Borders Around the Future of the Internet, 16 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 343, 381 (2006). 125 Id. at 345. 126 Id. at 368‐71. 127 Mark A. Lemley, Place and Cyberspace, 91 CALIF. L. REV. 521 (2003); Georgios I. Zekos, State and Personal Jurisdiction: State Cyberspace Jurisdiction and Personal Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 15 INT’L J. L. & TECH. 1 (2007). 128 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003); Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637 (2004); Susan Nauss Exon, The Internet Meets Obi Wan Kenobi in the Court of Next Resort, 8 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1 (2002); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The
28
international community regarding the assertion by any country of personal jurisdiction over foreign
actors.129 Similarly, one author suggests that international norms about appropriate Internet content
could help to resolve choice of law issues.130 Another set of articles proposes that the international
community should harmonize its laws to avoid differences in jurisdictional jurisprudence.131 A final set
focuses on treaties for the enforcement of judgments and argues that the U.S. should try to enter into
international enforcement treaties even though such treaties typically require a minimal level of
harmonization of substantive law.132
Other articles in this cluster consider the feasibility of an international solution to the jurisdictional
problems raised by cross border Internet transactions.133 A few of these articles review past
international solutions and find that, while many of them contain some good elements, most are largely
unworkable in practice. A few authors suggest that some type of centralized legal forum or uniform
LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003); Howard J. Grooters, Territorial Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 4 OR. REV. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Panagiota Kelali, Provisional Relief in Transnational Litigation in the Internet Era: What is in the US Best Interest?, 24 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER &
INFO. L. 263 (2006); Vineeth Narayaran, Harnessing the Cloud: International Law Implications of Cloud‐Computing, 12 CHI. J. INT'L L. 783 (2012); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Internet Law: Lessons from Europe, 9 No. 11 J. INTERNET L. 3 (2006). 129 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003); Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637 (2004); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003). 130 Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003). 131 Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Internet Law: Lessons from Europe, 9 No. 11 J. INTERNET L. 3 (2006). 132 Howard J. Grooters, Territorial Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 4 OR. REV. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Panagiota Kelali, Provisional Relief in Transnational Litigation in the Internet Era: What is in the US Best Interest?, 24 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER &
INFO. L. 263 (2006). 133 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003); Mark F. Kightlinger, A Solution to the Yahoo! Problem? The EC E‐Commerce Directive as a Model for International Cooperation on Internet Choice of Law, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 719 (2003); Annette Kur, Applicable Law: An Alternative Proposal for International Regulation‐‐The Max‐Planck Project on International Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 30 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 951 (2005); Jenny S. Martinez, Towards an International Judicial System, 56 STAN. L. REV. 429 (2003); Kevin A. Meehan, The Continuing Conundrum of International Internet Jurisdiction, 31 B.C. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 345 (2008); Kimberly A. Moore and Francesco Parisi, Symposium on Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts: Rethinking Forum Shopping in Cyberspace, 77 CHI.‐KENT L. REV. 1325 (2002); Erin Ann O’Hara, Choice of Law for Internet Transactions: The Uneasy Case for Online Consumer Protection, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1883 (2005); Jamie Spataro, Personal Jurisdiction Over The Internet: How International Is Today's Shoe, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 2 (2002).
29
legal doctrine is needed.134 Others suggest that the international community should just agree on norms
about resolving personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues.135
5. HagueConvention
A small group of articles examines the Hague Conference’s attempt to harmonize international
jurisdictional law through the proposed Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters.136 One group of authors believes that the proposed Hague Convention would be
good for the international community.137 These authors argue that the agreement is beneficial because
it uses a modified “targeting” test to determine personal jurisdiction over foreign actors and because its
ratification would mean that the United States would no longer be an outsider with respect to
jurisdictional treaties. Another group of authors argues that the Convention, as initially drafted, could
be problematic.138 This group finds that the Convention is not good for consumers, that the
enforcement provisions will be challenging for many nation states, and that the choice of forum
provisions do not adequately take into account that parties contracting over the Internet may not have
134 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003); Mark F. Kightlinger, A Solution to the Yahoo! Problem? The EC E‐Commerce Directive as a Model for International Cooperation on Internet Choice of Law, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 719 (2003); Jenny S. Martinez, Towards an International Judicial System, 56 STAN. L. REV. 429 (2003); Jamie Spataro, Personal Jurisdiction Over The Internet: How International Is Today's Shoe, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 2 (2002). 135 Kevin A. Meehan, The Continuing Conundrum of International Internet Jurisdiction, 31 B.C. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 345 (2008); Erin Ann O’Hara, Choice of Law for Internet Transactions: The Uneasy Case for Online Consumer Protection, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1883 (2005). 136 Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a “Targeting” Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E‐Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT’L L. REV. 241 (2006); Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet ‐ A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 223 (2002); Frederic Debusseré, International Jurisdiction Over E‐Commerce Contracts in the European Union: Quid Novi Sub Sole?, 10 INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 344 (2002); Jonathan A. Franklin, International Jurisdiction and Judgments in the Era of Global Networks: Irrelevance of, Goals for, and Comments on the Current Proposals, 77 CHI.‐KENT L. REV. 1213 (2002); Moritz Keller, Lessons for the Hague: Internet Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort Cases in the European Community and the United States, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 1 (2004); Timothy P. Lester, Globalized Automatic Choice of Forum: Where Do Internet Consumers Sue?: Proposed Article 7 of the Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and its Possible Effects on e‐Commerce, 9 NEW ENG. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 431 (2003); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, The Choice of Courts Convention: How Will it Work in Relation to Internet and E‐Commerce?, 5 J. PRIV. INT’L L. 517 (2009). 137 Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a “Targeting” Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E‐Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT’L L. REV. 241 (2006); Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet ‐ A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 223 (2002); Moritz Keller, Lessons for the Hague: Internet Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort Cases in the European Community and the United States, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 1 (2004). 138 Frederic Debussere, International Jurisdiction Over E‐Commerce Contracts in the European Union: Quid Novi Sub Sole?, 10 INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 344 (2002); Timothy P. Lester, Globalized Automatic Choice of Forum: Where Do Internet Consumers Sue?: Proposed Article 7 of the Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and its Possible Effects on e‐Commerce, 9 NEW ENG. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 431 (2003); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, The Choice of Courts Convention: How Will it Work in Relation to Internet and E‐Commerce?, 5 J. PRIV. INT’L L. 517 (2009).
30
equal bargaining power. Finally, one author suggests that the Convention may not be necessary
because web actors now use contracts or technological fixes to get around legal jurisdictional hurdles.139
6. ParochialismIsNotDesirable
A few authors fear that geographical borders on the Internet may promote parochial, inward looking
legislation and jurisprudence.140 They believe a jurisdictionally‐differentiated Internet encourages
individual states to apply the laws of their state over the laws of other states.141 This regime, the
authors argue, is not beneficial in the long‐term because “a state that refuses to defer to foreign norms
will likely find that its norms receive less deference from others in the future.”142 To avoid this outcome,
the authors offer a variety of alternative solutions, including an international judicial system143 and a
supranational alternative dispute resolution system.144
7. OnlineDisputeResolution
A small group of articles examines how online alternative dispute resolution systems may provide an
effective legal forum for disputes arising on the Internet and affecting users in a number of territorial
jurisdictions.145 One benefit of online dispute resolution articulated in some of the literature is that
these new forums make it easier for international parties to communicate and they prevent arguments
about which court should hear the case.146 A few articles also argue that these alternative forums could
139 Jonathan A. Franklin, International Jurisdiction and Judgments in the Era of Global Networks: Irrelevance of, Goals for, and Comments on the Current Proposals, 77 CHI.‐KENT L. REV. 1213 (2002). 140 Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819, 1845 (2005) ; Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 279 (2005); Jenny S. Martinez, Towards an International Judicial System, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 429 (2003). 141 See Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819, 1846 (2005); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 279, 291 (2005). 142 Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819, 1851 (2005). 143 Jenny S. Martinez, Towards an International Judicial System, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 429, 477 (2003). 144 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 279, 315 (2005). 145 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Crawford, 25 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 383; Darbee, 41 MCGEORGE L. REV. 345; Fred Galves, Virtual Justice As Reality: Making the Resolution of E‐Commerce Disputes More Convenient, Legitimate, Efficient, and Secure, 2009 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 1 (2009); Ghoshray, 38 U. TOL. L. REV. 317; Haitham A. Haloush, Jurisdictional Dilemma in Online Disputes: Rethinking Traditional Approaches, 42 INT'L LAW. 1129 (2008); Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005); Lucille M. Ponte, Boosting Consumer Confidence in E‐Business: Recommendations for Establishing Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution Programs for B2C Online Transactions, 12 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 441 (2002). 146 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Fred Galves, Virtual Justice As Reality: Making the Resolution of E‐Commerce Disputes More Convenient, Legitimate, Efficient, and Secure, 2009 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 1 (2009); Haitham A. Haloush, Jurisdictional Dilemma in Online Disputes: Rethinking Traditional Approaches, 42 INT'L LAW. 1129 (2008).
31
lead to the development of a global cyberlaw.147 Several articles suggest that one context in which they
could be especially helpful is multi‐jurisdictional business‐to‐consumer disputes.148
E. SubjectAreaSpecificArticlesA large portion of the literature examines how jurisdictional issues arise within specific areas of
substantive law. These articles frequently highlight substantive law in the context of commercial activity
on the Internet. The majority of these articles focused on e‐commerce, speech and defamation,
intellectual property, cybercrime, gambling, Internet taxation and tort law.
1. E‐Commerce
Thirty articles analyze jurisdiction issues associated with buying and selling goods and services via the
Internet.149 These articles focus primarily on the following three areas: e‐commerce growth, e‐
contracting, and contractual forum selection clauses.
147 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Crawford, 25 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 383. 148 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Fred Galves, Virtual Justice As Reality: Making the Resolution of E‐Commerce Disputes More Convenient, Legitimate, Efficient, and Secure, 2009 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 1 (2009); Haitham A. Haloush, Jurisdictional Dilemma in Online Disputes: Rethinking Traditional Approaches, 42 INT'L LAW. 1129 (2008); Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005); Lucille M. Ponte, Boosting Consumer Confidence in E‐Business: Recommendations for Establishing Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution Programs for B2C Online Transactions, 12 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 441 (2002). 149 J. Brian Beckham, Forum Selection Clauses in Clickwrap Agreements, 14 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 151 (2006); Shafik Bhalloo, Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Commerce Contracts: A Canadian Perspective, 7 COMP. L. REV. &
TECH. J. 225 (2004); Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a “Targeting” Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E‐Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT’L L. REV. 241 (2006); Anupam Chander, Trade 2.0, 34 YALE J. INT'L L. 281 (2009); Cindy Chen, United States and European Union Approaches to Internet Jurisdiction and Their Impact on E‐Commerce, 25 U. PA. J. INT'L ECON. L. 423 (2004); Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243 (2002); Frank Chirino, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 SW. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97 (2005); Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet ‐ A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 223 (2002); Kaustav M. Das, Ph.D., Forum Selection Clauses in Consumer Clickwrap and Browsewrap Agreements and the “Reasonably Communicated” Test, 77 WASH. L. REV. 481 (2002); Nathan J. Davis, Presumed Assent: The Judicial Acceptance of Clickwrap, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 577 (2007); Sherry H. Flax & Sarah F. Lacey, Access It, and You're Stuck with It, 43‐JUN MD. B.J. 40 (2010); Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006); Lorna E. Gillies, Addressing the “Cyberspace Fallacy”: Targeting the Jurisdiction of an Electronic Consumer Contract, 16 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 242 (2008); Derek J. Illar, Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web, 88 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 1 (2010); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Mark F. Kightlinger, A Solution to the Yahoo! Problem? The EC E‐Commerce Directive as a Model for International Cooperation on Internet Choice of Law, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 719 (2003); Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003); Samuel O. Manteaw, Entering the Digital Marketplace: E‐Commerce and Jurisdiction in Ghana, 16 TRANSNAT'L LAW. 345 (2003); Paul J. Morrow, Cyberlaw: The Unconscionability / Unenforceability of Contracts (Shrink‐Wrap, Clickwrap, and Browse‐Wrap) on the Internet: A
32
i. GrowthofE‐Commerce
Nearly half of the e‐commerce articles examine states’ rules about jurisdiction law and their potential
impact on this “new realm of commerce.”150 The vast majority of these articles argue that jurisdictional
norms should not hinder the growth of e‐commerce. They perceive a variety of problems with states’
jurisdictional frameworks. One author, for example, believes the “lack of uniformity” between states’
approaches makes it difficult for online businesses “to limit their legal liability.”151 In a similar vein,
another author thinks “existing jurisdictional norms” do not provide sufficient “legal certainty” of
possible liability.152
Some of the articles offer solutions to these problems that the articles identify as jeopardizing e‐
commerce. For example, one author would increase legal certainty by asserting personal jurisdiction
Multijurisdictional Analysis Showing the Need for Oversight, 11 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 7 (2011); Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421 (2006); Erin Ann O’Hara, Choice of Law for Internet Transactions: The Uneasy Case for Online Consumer Protection, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1883 (2005); Joakim ST Øren, International Jurisdiction Over Consumer Contracts in e‐Europe, 52 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 665 (2003); Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005); Christopher William Pappas, Comparative U.S. & EU Approaches to E‐Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation, 31 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 325 (2002); Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 133 (2002); Norbert Reich, Transnational Consumer Law‐‐Reality or Fiction?, 27 PENN ST. INT’L L. REV. 859 (2009); Larry A. Ribstein & Bruce H. Kobayashi, State Regulation of Electronic Commerce, 51 EMORY L.J. 1 (2002); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006); Ty Tasker & Daryn Pakcyk, Article: Cyber‐Surfing on the High Seas of Legalese: Law and Technology of Internet Agreements, 18 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 79 (2008). 150 Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243, 246 (2002). See also Anupam Chander, Trade 2.0, 34 YALE J. INT'L L. 281 (2009); Cindy Chen, United States and European Union Approaches to Internet Jurisdiction and Their Impact on E‐Commerce, 25 U. PA. J. INT'L ECON. L. 423 (2004); Frank Chirino, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 SW. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97 (2005); Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet ‐ A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 223 (2002); Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006); Derek J. Illar, Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web, 88 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 1 (2010); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Samuel O. Manteaw, Entering the Digital Marketplace: E‐Commerce and Jurisdiction in Ghana, 16 TRANSNAT'L LAW. 345 (2003); Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421 (2006); Christopher William Pappas, Comparative U.S. & EU Approaches to E‐Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation, 31 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 325 (2002); Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. &
POL'Y 133 (2002); Larry A. Ribstein & Bruce H. Kobayashi, State Regulation of Electronic Commerce, 51 EMORY L.J. 1 (2002). 151 Cindy Chen, United States and European Union Approaches to Internet Jurisdiction and Their Impact on E‐Commerce, 25 U. PA. J. INT'L ECON. L. 423, 423 (2004). 152 Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 133, 137‐38 (2002).
33
over an e‐commerce defendant only when the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum, the
plaintiff can show harm in the forum and the forum is reasonable.153 Conversely, another author sets
forth an approach that “specifically inquires into an Internet actor's intentions and weighs the actions
that an individual has taken either to submit to jurisdiction in a foreign land or to evade it.”154 A third
author suggests a similar framework, but places the burden of proof on the seller.155
A few articles, however, find the perceived lack of uniformity and legal certainty less alarming. For
example one author believes we should “protect the capacity of states to regulate themselves.”156 The
author accordingly argues that global services should “conform to local rules when both the rules and
their application to a particular transaction are consistent with international legal norms.”157 Similarly,
additional authors maintain that traditional concepts of jurisdiction are “up to the task” of resolving e‐
commerce disputes.158
ii. IssuesPertainingtoElectronicContracting
Nearly a dozen of the surveyed articles substantively discuss shrinkwrap, clickwrap and browsewrap
agreements—so‐called “electronic contracts.”159 Some of these articles provide an overview of how
153 Frank Chirino, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 SW. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97, 113‐15 (2005); 154 Derek J. Illar, Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web, 88 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 1, 15 (2010). 155 Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421, 456 (2006). 156 Anupam Chander, Trade 2.0, 34 YALE J. INT'L L. 281, 285 (2009). See also Larry A. Ribstein & Bruce H. Kobayashi, State Regulation of Electronic Commerce, 51 EMORY L.J. 1, 3 (2002) (stating “the problems of state regulation have been exaggerated”). 157 Anupam Chander, Trade 2.0, 34 YALE J. INT'L L. 281, 285 (2009). 158 Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a “Targeting” Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E‐Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT’L L. REV. 241, 244‐45 (2006); Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243, 246 (2002). 159 Shafik Bhalloo, Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Commerce Contracts: A Canadian Perspective, 7 COMP. L. REV. &
TECH. J. 225 (2004); Nathan J. Davis, Presumed Assent: The Judicial Acceptance of Clickwrap, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 577 (2007); Lorna E. Gillies, Addressing the “Cyberspace Fallacy”: Targeting the Jurisdiction of an Electronic Consumer Contract, 16 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 242 (2008); Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003); Samuel O. Manteaw, Entering the Digital Marketplace: E‐Commerce and Jurisdiction in Ghana, 16 TRANSNAT'L LAW. 345 (2003); Paul J. Morrow, Cyberlaw: The Unconscionability / Unenforceability of Contracts (Shrink‐Wrap, Clickwrap, and Browse‐Wrap) on the Internet: A Multijurisdictional Analysis Showing the Need for Oversight, 11 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 7 (2011); Erin Ann O’Hara, Choice of Law for Internet Transactions: The Uneasy Case for Online Consumer Protection, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1883 (2005); Joakim ST Øren, International Jurisdiction Over Consumer Contracts in e‐Europe, 52 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 665 (2003); Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005); Christopher William Pappas, Comparative U.S. & EU Approaches to E‐Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation, 31 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 325 (2002); Ty Tasker & Daryn Pakcyk, Article: Cyber‐Surfing on the High Seas of Legalese: Law and Technology of Internet Agreements, 18 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 79 (2008).
34
various states treat electronic contracts and whether such agreements are likely to be enforced.160
Others focus on the jurisdictional issues that arise alongside electronic contracts and offer ways in which
businesses may limit their liability.161 A few articles take different perspectives. One author, for
example, argues that electronic contracts are problematic because they are “not communicated,
definitive or the product of negotiation.”162 The author sets forth a series of recommendations aimed at
making electronic contracts more just.163 Another author, meanwhile, “explores the extent to which the
contract doctrine applied to online transactions . . . might work to promote consumer trust in unknown
vendors.”164 She suggests a variety of changes, including clearer, more conspicuous terms of service
policies and more generous damage awards, designed to increase consumers’ faith in the online
market.165
iii. TheValidityofForumSelectionClauses
Six of the e‐commerce articles address the validity of forum selection clauses in electronic contracts.166
Most of these articles provide an overview of the law in the United States and, in one article, the
European Union.167 They generally conclude that courts in the United States will uphold the terms of
clickwrap agreements, including forum selection clauses “unless they are unreasonable, unconscionable
160 Nathan J. Davis, Presumed Assent: The Judicial Acceptance of Clickwrap, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 577 (2007); Samuel O. Manteaw, Entering the Digital Marketplace: E‐Commerce and Jurisdiction in Ghana, 16 TRANSNAT'L LAW. 345 (2003); Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005); Christopher William Pappas, Comparative U.S. & EU Approaches to E‐Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation, 31 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 325 (2002); Ty Tasker & Daryn Pakcyk, Article: Cyber‐Surfing on the High Seas of Legalese: Law and Technology of Internet Agreements, 18 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 79 (2008). 161 Shafik Bhalloo, Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Commerce Contracts: A Canadian Perspective, 7 COMP. L. REV. &
TECH. J. 225 (2004); Lorna E. Gillies, Addressing the “Cyberspace Fallacy”: Targeting the Jurisdiction of an Electronic Consumer Contract, 16 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 242 (2008); Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003). 162 Paul J. Morrow, Cyberlaw: The Unconscionability / Unenforceability of Contracts (Shrink‐Wrap, Clickwrap, and Browse‐Wrap) on the Internet: A Multijurisdictional Analysis Showing the Need for Oversight, 11 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 7 (2011). 163 Id. 164 Erin Ann O’Hara, Choice of Law for Internet Transactions: The Uneasy Case for Online Consumer Protection, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1883, 1884 (2005). 165 Id. 166 J. Brian Beckham, Forum Selection Clauses in Clickwrap Agreements, 14 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 151 (2006); Kaustav M. Das, Ph.D., Forum Selection Clauses in Consumer Clickwrap and Browsewrap Agreements and the “Reasonably Communicated” Test, 77 WASH. L. REV. 481 (2002); Sherry H. Flax & Sarah F. Lacey, Access It, and You're Stuck with It, 43‐JUN MD. B.J. 40 (2010); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006). 167 Sherry H. Flax & Sarah F. Lacey, Access It, and You're Stuck with It, 43‐JUN MD. B.J. 40 (2010); Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007); Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006).
35
or contrary to the public policy of the forum.”168 The articles find, however, that the same courts are
less likely to enforce the terms in browsewrap agreements.169 The rest of the articles consider forum
selection clauses from the consumer’s point‐of‐view. One author argues that freedom of contract
should be better balanced with consumer protection dictates.170 He advocates using consumer
protection claims to prevent the enforcement of certain electronic contracts.171 Another author focuses
on the issue of providing adequate notice of the forum selection clause to consumers.172 He argues that
courts should adopt a two‐pronged “reasonably communicated” test that requires courts to consider
the “physical characteristics” of the electronic contract and “extrinsic factors indicating the consumer's
ability to become meaningfully informed of the forum‐selection clause.”173
2. OnlineSpeech
Over 30 articles address issues arising from speech on the Internet.174 The following three themes
predominate this segment of articles: defamation, libel tourism and First Amendment.175
168 Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507, 1551 (2007). See also Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006). 169 Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507, 1551 (2007). See also Sherry H. Flax & Sarah F. Lacey, Access It, and You're Stuck with It, 43‐JUN MD. B.J. 40 (2010). 170 J. Brian Beckham, Forum Selection Clauses in Clickwrap Agreements, 14 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 151, 169 (2006). 171 Id. 172 Kaustav M. Das, Ph.D., Forum Selection Clauses in Consumer Clickwrap and Browsewrap Agreements and the “Reasonably Communicated” Test, 77 WASH. L. REV. 481, 481 (2002). 173 Id. 174 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Patrick J. Borchers, Internet Libel: The Consequences of a Non‐Rule Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 473 (2004); Stephen W. Bosky, Note, Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri's Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer‐Smith, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 587 (2012); Kyle W. Brenton, Bonghits4jesus.com? Scrutinizing Public School Authority over Student Cyberspeech Through the Lens of Personal Jurisdiction, 92 MINN. L. REV. 1206 (2008); Blake Cooper, The U.S. Libel Law Conundrum and the Necessity of Defensive Corporate Measures in Lessening International Internet Libel Liability, 21 CONN. J. INT'L L. 127 (2005); Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007); Juanita Darling, Forum Shopping and the Cyber Pamphleteer: Banamex V. Rodriguez, 8 COMM. L. & POL'Y 361 (2003); Philip Adam Davis, The Defamation of Choice‐of‐Law in Cyberspace: Countering the View that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is Inadequate to Navigate the Borderless Reaches of the Intangible Frontier, 54 FED. COMM. L.J. 339 (2002); Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637 (2004); Michelle Feldman, Putting the Brakes on Libel Tourism: Examining the Effects Test As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction Under New York's Libel Terrorism Protection Act, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 2457 (2010); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Lorna E. Gillies, Jurisdiction for Cross‐Border Breach of Personality and Defamation: Edate Advertising and Martinez, 61 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 1007 (2012); Holly S. Hawkins, A Sliding Scale Approach for Evaluating the Terrorist Threat over the Internet, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 633 (2005); Allison Marie Isaak, Picking Fights in Missouri: Baldwin's Non‐Rule Embraces the Minority Approach to Internet Libel Jurisdiction, 76 MO. L. REV. 1265 (2011); Uta
36
i. DefamationontheInternet
The vast majority of the speech‐related articles explore issues arising from cyber‐defamation disputes.176
Although a few of these articles concentrate on choice of law approaches for cross‐border defamation
Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS &
TECH. 387 (2004); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Sarah H. Ludington, Aiming at the Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 541 (2012); Robert L. McFarland, Please Do Not Publish This Article in England: A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, 79 MISS. L.J. 617 (2010); Todd W. Moore, Untying Our Hands: The Case for Uniform Personal Jurisdiction over “Libel Tourism”, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 3207 (2009); Nikhil Moro, Proposal for A Model Law to Prosecute Internet Libel, 16 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012); Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002); James R. Pielemeier, Choice of Law for Multistate Defamation‐The State of Affairs as Internet Defamation Beckons, 35 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 55 (2003); Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004); David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010); Neil M. Rosenbaum, Pick A Court, Any Court: Forum Shopping Defamation Claims in the Internet Age, 14 No. 12 J. INTERNET L. 18 (2011); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Borders On, or Borders Around the Future of the Internet, 16 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 343 (2006); Molly S. Van Houweling, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, the First Amendment, and Internet Speech: Notes for the Next Yahoo! v. LICRA, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 697 (2003); Aaron Warshaw, Rome II and the Choice of Law for Defamation Claims, 32 BROOKLYN J. INT’L L. 269 (2006); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004); Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367 (2008); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). 175 These themes exclude an article that explores domestic speech regulations based on local community standards, Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007), and an article that focuses on student speech online, Kyle W. Brenton, Bonghits4jesus.com? Scrutinizing Public School Authority over Student Cyberspeech Through the Lens of Personal Jurisdiction, 92 MINN. L. REV. 1206 (2008). 176 Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Patrick J. Borchers, Internet Libel: The Consequences of a Non‐Rule Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 473 (2004); Stephen W. Bosky, Note, Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri's Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer‐Smith, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 587 (2012); Blake Cooper, The U.S. Libel Law Conundrum and the Necessity of Defensive Corporate Measures in Lessening International Internet Libel Liability, 21 CONN. J. INT'L L. 127 (2005); Philip Adam Davis, The Defamation of Choice‐of‐Law in Cyberspace: Countering the View that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is Inadequate to Navigate the Borderless Reaches of the Intangible Frontier, 54 FED. COMM. L.J. 339 (2002); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Lorna E. Gillies, Jurisdiction for Cross‐Border Breach of Personality and Defamation: Edate Advertising and Martinez, 61 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 1007 (2012); Allison Marie Isaak, Picking Fights in Missouri: Baldwin's Non‐Rule Embraces the Minority Approach to Internet Libel Jurisdiction, 76 MO. L. REV. 1265 (2011); Uta Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 387 (2004); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Sarah H. Ludington, Aiming at the Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 541 (2012); Nikhil Moro, Proposal for A Model Law to Prosecute Internet Libel, 16 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012); James R. Pielemeier, Choice of Law for Multistate Defamation‐The State of Affairs as Internet Defamation Beckons, 35 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 55 (2003); Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow
37
on the Internet,177 most focus on questions of personal jurisdiction, namely whether it is appropriate for
a court to assert jurisdiction over a defendant whose only contact with the forum is the allegedly
defamatory online speech.178 Many articles provide an overview of the applicable case law179 and
analyze Dow Jones v. Gutnick.180 Some argue for or against specific judicial approaches. One author, for
Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004); David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010); Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Borders On, or Borders Around the Future of the Internet, 16 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 343 (2006); Aaron Warshaw, Rome II and the Choice of Law for Defamation Claims, 32 BROOKLYN J. INT’L L. 269 (2006); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). 177 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Nikhil Moro, Proposal for A Model Law to Prosecute Internet Libel, 16 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012); James R. Pielemeier, Choice of Law for Multistate Defamation‐The State of Affairs as Internet Defamation Beckons, 35 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 55 (2003). 178 Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006); Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Patrick J. Borchers, Internet Libel: The Consequences of a Non‐Rule Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 473 (2004); Stephen W. Bosky, Note, Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri's Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer‐Smith, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 587 (2012); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Lorna E. Gillies, Jurisdiction for Cross‐Border Breach of Personality and Defamation: Edate Advertising and Martinez, 61 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 1007 (2012); Allison Marie Isaak, Picking Fights in Missouri: Baldwin's Non‐Rule Embraces the Minority Approach to Internet Libel Jurisdiction, 76 MO. L. REV. 1265 (2011); Uta Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 387 (2004); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Sarah H. Ludington, Aiming at the Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 541 (2012); Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004); David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). 179 Patrick J. Borchers, Internet Libel: The Consequences of a Non‐Rule Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 473 (2004); Stephen W. Bosky, Note, Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri's Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer‐Smith, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 587 (2012); Lorna E. Gillies, Jurisdiction for Cross‐Border Breach of Personality and Defamation: Edate Advertising and Martinez, 61 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 1007 (2012); Allison Marie Isaak, Picking Fights in Missouri: Baldwin's Non‐Rule Embraces the Minority Approach to Internet Libel Jurisdiction, 76 MO. L. REV. 1265 (2011); Sarah H. Ludington, Aiming at the Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 541 (2012); David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010). 180 Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Uta Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 387 (2004); Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004); David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010); Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004); Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003).
38
example, believes that American free speech principles would be best protected if courts throughout
the world “assume jurisdiction over an out of forum libel defendant only when it is clear that the
defendant had ‘targeted’ the communication to readers in the forum state.”181 Conversely, another
author contends that such a targeting requirement unfairly “protects foreign libel defendants who have
published on the Internet from being sued outside of their home states.”182 She suggests that courts
follow the standard minimum contacts analysis established in International Shoe.183
ii. LibelTourism
Six of the surveyed articles examine issues related to international forum shopping by libel plaintiffs—a
trend known as “libel tourism.”184 These articles attribute this phenomenon to “fundamental
differences” in international libel laws, which make certain territorial jurisdictions more or less favorable
to libel plaintiffs.185 The articles recognize that the global scale of the Internet provides significantly
more avenues for libel tourism than was previously possible,186 and postulate that this may “be an
obstacle to free speech” in cyberspace.187 Although the articles acknowledge “the need to protect the
reputations of subjects unfairly harmed by broadly circulated articles,”188 and respect the right of
sovereign nations to determine their own laws,189 they generally support the preservation of First
Amendment protections for American publishers. For example, one author argues that the United
States should enact “a federal statute granting personal jurisdiction over libel tourists” in certain
circumstances to “prevent chilling effects upon protected speech.”190 Another author proposes an
alternative approach. She believes members of the American media should “take action” through the
181 Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727, 728 (2006). 182 Sarah H. Ludington, Aiming at the Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 541, 542‐43 (2012). 183 Id. at 543. 184 Juanita Darling, Forum Shopping and the Cyber Pamphleteer: Banamex V. Rodriguez, 8 COMM. L. & POL'Y 361 (2003); Michelle Feldman, Putting the Brakes on Libel Tourism: Examining the Effects Test As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction Under New York's Libel Terrorism Protection Act, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 2457 (2010); Robert L. McFarland, Please Do Not Publish This Article in England: A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, 79 MISS. L.J. 617 (2010); Todd W. Moore, Untying Our Hands: The Case for Uniform Personal Jurisdiction over “Libel Tourism”, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 3207 (2009); Neil M. Rosenbaum, Pick A Court, Any Court: Forum Shopping Defamation Claims in the Internet Age, 14 No. 12 J. INTERNET L. 18 (2011); Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367 (2008). 185 Todd W. Moore, Untying Our Hands: The Case for Uniform Personal Jurisdiction over “Libel Tourism”, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 3207, 3209 (2009). 186 See, e.g., Neil M. Rosenbaum, Pick A Court, Any Court: Forum Shopping Defamation Claims in the Internet Age, 14 No. 12 J. INTERNET L. 18, 18 (2011). 187 Juanita Darling, Forum Shopping and the Cyber Pamphleteer: Banamex V. Rodriguez, 8 COMM. L. & POL'Y 361, 364 (2003). 188 Id. 189 Robert L. McFarland, Please Do Not Publish This Article in England: A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, 79 MISS. L.J. 617, 622 (2010). 190 Todd W. Moore, Untying Our Hands: The Case for Uniform Personal Jurisdiction over “Libel Tourism”, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 3207, 3241 (2009).
39
courts by pursuing anti‐suit injunctions, asserting forum non conveniens and contesting the
enforceability of foreign judgments.191
iii. TheFirstAmendment
Six of the surveyed articles address in depth the impact of the First Amendment on choice of law and
personal jurisdiction related to online speech.192 These articles focus on issues arising from “the
collision of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech with the speech restrictions manifested in
laws around the globe.”193 Many discuss this “collision” in tandem with the Yahoo! case.194 These
articles in particular believe the enforcement of speech‐restrictive foreign judgments may hinder the
proliferation of speech protected by the First Amendment in the United States.195 Others, however,
disagree. One author, for example, argues that following Dow Jones v. Gutnick, the reach of the First
Amendment remains and will continue to remain “hard to escape” due to the “enormous amount of
content and infrastructure” the United States provides to the Internet world.196
3. IntellectualProperty
Nearly 30 articles focus on issues related to intellectual property and the Internet.197 All but one of
these articles discuss intellectual property law generally or concentrate on problems specific to
copyright and trademark law.198
191 Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367, 369 (2008). 192 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006); Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637 (2004); Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003); Holly S. Hawkins, A Sliding Scale Approach for Evaluating the Terrorist Threat over the Internet, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 633 (2005); Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002); Molly S. Van Houweling, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, the First Amendment, and Internet Speech: Notes for the Next Yahoo! v. LICRA, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 697 (2003). 193 Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637, 638 (2004). 194 Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007); Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637 (2004); Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002); Molly S. Van Houweling, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, the First Amendment, and Internet Speech: Notes for the Next Yahoo! v. LICRA, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 697 (2003). 195 See, e.g., Molly S. Van Houweling, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, the First Amendment, and Internet Speech: Notes for the Next Yahoo! v. LICRA, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 697, 698 (2003). 196 Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590, 593 (2003). 197 Michael P. Allen, In Rem Jurisdiction from Pennoyer to Shaffer to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 11 GEO. MASON L. REV. 243 (2002); Andrea Antonelli, Applicable Law Aspects of Copyright Infringement on the Internet: What Principles should Apply?, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 147 (2003); Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003); Gregg M. Barbakoff, Civil
40
i. IntellectualPropertyinGeneral
Three of the surveyed articles consider the jurisdictional impact of the Internet on intellectual property
law.199 These articles provide an overview of “statutory developments for Internet‐related intellectual
Procedure: No Shoes, No Service? Why Cybersquatting Has Outgrown the International Shoe Framework for Personal Jurisdiction, and the Need for Legislative Reform, 6 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 374 (2011); Sheldon Burshtein, Jurisdiction in Internet Trade‐Mark and Domain Name Disputes, 20 INTELL. PROP. J. 1 (2006); Jason W. Callen, Asserting In Personam Jurisdiction over Foreign Cybersquatters, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1837 (2002); Zohar Efroni, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy: New Opportunities For International Forum Shopping?, 26 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 335 (2003); Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247 (2005); Thomas C. Folsom, Defining Cyberspace (Finding Real Virtue in the Place of Virtual Reality), 9 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 75 (2007); Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006); Anita B. Frohlich, Copyright Infringement in the Internet Age‐‐Primetime for Harmonized Conflict‐of‐Law Rules?, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 851 (2009); A. Michael Froomkin, ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"‐‐Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67 BROOK. L. REV. 605 (2002); Richard L. Garnett, Trademarks and the Internet: Resolution of International IP Disputes by Unilateral Application of U.S. Laws, 30 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 925 (2005); Jane C. Ginsburg, The Cyberian Captivity of Copyright: Territoriality and Authors’ Rights in a Networked World, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 185 (2003); Adam M. Greenfield, Reviving the Distinction Between in Rem and in Personam Jurisdiction by Way of the Anti‐Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 35 AIPLA Q.J. 29 (2007); John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1861 (2008); Megan M. La Belle, "Virtual" Contacts and Patent Cases: How Should Internet‐Related Activity in Patent Cases Affect the Personal Jurisdiction Analysis?, 13 No. 12 J. INTERNET L. 25 (2010); Susanna H. Leong & Cheng Lim Saw, Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World‐‐Does Territoriality Matter?, 15 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 38 (2007); Ulf Maunsbach, Some Reflections Concerning Jurisdiction in Cases on Cross‐Border Trademark Infringements Through the Internet, 47 SCANDINAVIAN STUDS. L. 493 (2004); Jack Mellyn, “Reach Out and Touch Someone”: The Growing Use of Domain Name Seizure as a Vehicle for Extraterritorial Enforcement of U.S. Law, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1241 (2011); Shane P. Morris, Pirates of the Internet, At Intellectual Property’s End With Torrents and Challenges for Choice of Law, 17 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 282 (2009); Michelle R. Osinski, Personal Jurisdiction and Internet Torts: Michigan District Courts Require “Something More” than Simply Registering Someone Else’s Trademark as a Domain Name and Posting a Web Page on the Internet to Subject a Defendant to Personal Jurisdiction, 80 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 249 (2003); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011); Michael L. Rustad & Diane D’Angelo, The Path of Internet Law: An Annotated Guide to Legal Landmarks, 2011 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 12 (2011); Stephen Saxby, Personal Jurisdiction Ruling in P2P Network Music Copyright Dispute, 22 COMPUTER L. & SECURITY REPORT 350 (2006); Suzanna Sherry, Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace, 55 VAND. L. REV. 309 (2002); Marketa Trimble, Setting Foot on Enemy Ground: Cease‐and‐Desist Letters, DMCA Notifications and Personal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions, 50 IDEA 777 (2010); Daniel E. Wanat, Copyright Infringement Litigation and the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Within Due Process Limits: Judicial Application of Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Direction, or Purposeful Effects Requirements to Finding That a Plaintiff Has Established A Defendant's Minimum Contacts Within A Forum State, 59 MERCER L. REV. 553 (2008); Ng Hon Wah, Hong Kong Courts’ Jurisdiction to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights Infringed by Internet Contents, 35 HONG KONG L.J. 367 (2005); Raquel Xalabarder, Copyright: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction in the Digital Age, 8 ANN. SURV. INT'L & COMP. L. 79 (2002). 198 But see Megan M. La Belle, "Virtual" Contacts and Patent Cases: How Should Internet‐Related Activity in Patent Cases Affect the Personal Jurisdiction Analysis?, 13 No. 12 J. INTERNET L. 25 (2010) (discussing jurisdictional issues arising in patent litigation where a party’s only contact with the forum is via the Internet). 199 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003); Michael L. Rustad & Diane D’Angelo, The Path of Internet Law: An Annotated Guide to Legal Landmarks,
41
property law,”200 consider how specific states’ jurisdictional rules are used to enforce foreign intellectual
property rights,201 and “offer recommendations for an international protocol standardizing the means by
which national courts determine how and when to assert [personal] jurisdiction over foreign
defendants.”202
ii. Copyright
Another subset of the intellectual property‐focused articles examines the personal jurisdiction and
choice of law issues that arise in copyright actions.203 These articles generally discuss the problems
associated with the enforcement of copyrights, particularly those related to online infringement.204
Some analyze the approaches courts use to assert personal jurisdiction over the defendants in a
copyright suit.205 Others consider whether current international rules and conventions are capable of
fairly resolving cross‐border copyright suits.206 One author questions whether it will remain necessary
2011 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 12 (2011); Ng Hon Wah, Hong Kong Courts’ Jurisdiction to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights Infringed by Internet Contents, 35 HONG KONG L.J. 367 (2005). 200 Michael L. Rustad & Diane D’Angelo, The Path of Internet Law: An Annotated Guide to Legal Landmarks, 2011 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 12, 12 (2011). 201 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63, 63 (2003); Ng Hon Wah, Hong Kong Courts’ Jurisdiction to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights Infringed by Internet Contents, 35 HONG KONG L.J. 367, 367 (2005). 202 Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63, 64 (2003). 203 Andrea Antonelli, Applicable Law Aspects of Copyright Infringement on the Internet: What Principles should Apply?, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 147 (2003); Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247 (2005); Anita B. Frohlich, Copyright Infringement in the Internet Age‐‐Primetime for Harmonized Conflict‐of‐Law Rules?, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 851 (2009); Jane C. Ginsburg, The Cyberian Captivity of Copyright: Territoriality and Authors’ Rights in a Networked World, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 185 (2003); Susanna H. Leong & Cheng Lim Saw, Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World‐‐Does Territoriality Matter?, 15 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 38 (2007); Shane P. Morris, Pirates of the Internet, At Intellectual Property’s End With Torrents and Challenges for Choice of Law, 17 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 282 (2009); Stephen Saxby, Personal Jurisdiction Ruling in P2P Network Music Copyright Dispute, 22 COMPUTER L. &
SECURITY REPORT 350 (2006); Marketa Trimble, Setting Foot on Enemy Ground: Cease‐and‐Desist Letters, DMCA Notifications and Personal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions, 50 IDEA 777 (2010); Daniel E. Wanat, Copyright Infringement Litigation and the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Within Due Process Limits: Judicial Application of Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Direction, or Purposeful Effects Requirements to Finding That a Plaintiff Has Established A Defendant's Minimum Contacts Within A Forum State, 59 MERCER L. REV. 553 (2008); Raquel Xalabarder, Copyright: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction in the Digital Age, 8 ANN. SURV. INT'L & COMP. L. 79 (2002). 204 See, e.g., Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247, 248 (2005) (“The international nature of the Internet creates jurisdictional quagmires for copyright owners seeking to enforce copyrights globally”). 205 Susanna H. Leong & Cheng Lim Saw, Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World‐‐Does Territoriality Matter?, 15 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 38 (2007); Marketa Trimble, Setting Foot on Enemy Ground: Cease‐and‐Desist Letters, DMCA Notifications and Personal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions, 50 IDEA 777 (2010). 206 Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247 (2005); Anita B. Frohlich, Copyright Infringement in the Internet Age‐‐Primetime for
42
“to fix a territorial origin” for works in the new digital era.207 Although she believes this fundamental
tenet of copyright law will continue to exist, she argues that the “territorial tether” should be relaxed
“when copyright owners seek to license rights for Internet exploitation.”208
iii. TrademarksandCybersquatting
A large group of the surveyed articles address issues related to the use of trademarks on the Internet.209
Although a few of these articles address the problems of cross‐border trademark infringement and
dilution via the Internet,210 most discuss the jurisdictional problems specific to claims of
cybersquatting.211 Several articles argue that the in rem provisions of the United States’
Harmonized Conflict‐of‐Law Rules?, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 851 (2009); Raquel Xalabarder, Copyright: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction in the Digital Age, 8 ANN. SURV. INT'L & COMP. L. 79 (2002). 207 Jane C. Ginsburg, The Cyberian Captivity of Copyright: Territoriality and Authors’ Rights in a Networked World, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 185, 199 (2003). 208 Id. 209 Michael P. Allen, In Rem Jurisdiction from Pennoyer to Shaffer to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 11 GEO. MASON L. REV. 243 (2002); Gregg M. Barbakoff, Civil Procedure: No Shoes, No Service? Why Cybersquatting Has Outgrown the International Shoe Framework for Personal Jurisdiction, and the Need for Legislative Reform, 6 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 374 (2011); Sheldon Burshtein, Jurisdiction in Internet Trade‐Mark and Domain Name Disputes, 20 INTELL. PROP. J. 1 (2006); Jason W. Callen, Asserting In Personam Jurisdiction over Foreign Cybersquatters, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1837 (2002); Zohar Efroni, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy: New Opportunities For International Forum Shopping?, 26 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 335 (2003); Thomas C. Folsom, Defining Cyberspace (Finding Real Virtue in the Place of Virtual Reality), 9 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 75 (2007); Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006); A. Michael Froomkin, ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"‐‐Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67 BROOK. L. REV. 605 (2002); Richard L. Garnett, Trademarks and the Internet: Resolution of International IP Disputes by Unilateral Application of U.S. Laws, 30 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 925 (2005); Adam M. Greenfield, Reviving the Distinction Between in Rem and in Personam Jurisdiction by Way of the Anti‐Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 35 AIPLA Q.J. 29 (2007); John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1861 (2008); Ulf Maunsbach, Some Reflections Concerning Jurisdiction in Cases on Cross‐Border Trademark Infringements Through the Internet, 47 SCANDINAVIAN STUDS. L. 493 (2004); Jack Mellyn, “Reach Out and Touch Someone”: The Growing Use of Domain Name Seizure as a Vehicle for Extraterritorial Enforcement of U.S. Law, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1241 (2011); Osinski, 80 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 249; Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011); Suzanna Sherry, Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace, 55 VAND. L. REV. 309 (2002). 210 Thomas C. Folsom, Defining Cyberspace (Finding Real Virtue in the Place of Virtual Reality), 9 TUL. J. TECH. &
INTELL. PROP. 75 (2007); Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006); Richard L. Garnett, Trademarks and the Internet: Resolution of International IP Disputes by Unilateral Application of U.S. Laws, 30 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 925 (2005); Ulf Maunsbach, Some Reflections Concerning Jurisdiction in Cases on Cross‐Border Trademark Infringements Through the Internet, 47 SCANDINAVIAN STUDS. L. 493 (2004). 211 Michael P. Allen, In Rem Jurisdiction from Pennoyer to Shaffer to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 11 GEO. MASON L. REV. 243 (2002); Gregg M. Barbakoff, Civil Procedure: No Shoes, No Service? Why Cybersquatting Has Outgrown the International Shoe Framework for Personal Jurisdiction, and the Need for Legislative Reform, 6 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 374 (2011); Sheldon Burshtein, Jurisdiction in Internet Trade‐Mark and Domain Name Disputes, 20 INTELL. PROP. J. 1 (2006); Jason W. Callen, Asserting In Personam Jurisdiction over Foreign Cybersquatters, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1837 (2002); Zohar Efroni, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy: New Opportunities For International Forum Shopping?, 26 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 335 (2003); A. Michael Froomkin, ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"‐‐Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67
43
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act are ineffective and perhaps even unconstitutional.212 They
contend that the preferred approach to exerting personal jurisdiction over cybersquatters would be a
combination of existing jurisprudence, namely, the International Shoe minimum contacts standard and
the Calder effects test.213 A few of the articles additionally suggest that a body other than the
judiciary—such as Congress or the international community through a treaty—would be better suited
for resolving cybersquatting claims.214
4. Cybercrime
One group of articles discusses jurisdiction in the context of cybercrime and cyberterrorism.215 These
articles recognize that the perpetrators of cybercrimes and cyberterrorism are frequently located
outside of the territorial jurisdiction where the harm is inflicted and therefore prosecution of the wrong
often faces jurisdictional hurdles.
BROOK. L. REV. 605 (2002); Adam M. Greenfield, Reviving the Distinction Between in Rem and in Personam Jurisdiction by Way of the Anti‐Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 35 AIPLA Q.J. 29 (2007); John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1861 (2008); Jack Mellyn, “Reach Out and Touch Someone”: The Growing Use of Domain Name Seizure as a Vehicle for Extraterritorial Enforcement of U.S. Law, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1241 (2011); Osinski, 80 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 249; Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011); Suzanna Sherry, Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace, 55 VAND. L. REV. 309 (2002). 212 Allen, 11 GEO. MASON L. REV. 243; John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1861 (2008); Jack Mellyn, “Reach Out and Touch Someone”: The Growing Use of Domain Name Seizure as a Vehicle for Extraterritorial Enforcement of U.S. Law, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1241 (2011); Suzanna Sherry, Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace, 55 VAND. L. REV. 309 (2002). 213 Michael P. Allen, In Rem Jurisdiction from Pennoyer to Shaffer to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 11 GEO. MASON L. REV. 243 (2002); Jason W. Callen, Asserting In Personam Jurisdiction over Foreign Cybersquatters, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1837 (2002); John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1861 (2008); Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011). 214 Zohar Efroni, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy: New Opportunities For International Forum Shopping?, 26 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 335 (2003); Jack Mellyn, “Reach Out and Touch Someone”: The Growing Use of Domain Name Seizure as a Vehicle for Extraterritorial Enforcement of U.S. Law, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1241 (2011); Suzanna Sherry, Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace, 55 VAND. L. REV. 309 (2002). 215 Susan W. Brenner & Bert Jaap‐Koops, Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction, 4 J. HIGH TECH. L. 1 (2004); John Eisinger, Script Kiddies Beware: The Long Arm of U.S. Jurisdiction to Prescribe, 59 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1507 (2002); Kelly A. Gable, Cyber‐Apocalypse Now: Securing the Internet Against Cyberterrorism and Using Universal Jurisdiction As A Deterrent, 43 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 57 (2010); Holly S. Hawkins, A Sliding Scale Approach for Evaluating the Terrorist Threat over the Internet, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 633 (2005); Roni G. Melamed, Exercising Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident Cyberstalkers, 37‐AUG COLO. LAW. 75 (2008); William M. Stahl, The Uncharted Waters of Cyberspace: Applying the Principles of International Maritime Law to the Problem of Cybersecurity, 40 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 247 (2011); Gregor Urbas, Cybercrime, Jurisdiction and Extradition: The Extended Reach of Cross‐Border Law Enforcement, 16 No. 1 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012); Amalie M. Weber, The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 425 (2003).
44
Most of these articles suggest that the international community should work together to combat
cyberterrorism by creating a model code or uniform system to address jurisdictional issues through a
treaty or other international mechanism.216 Some articles propose that universal jurisdiction for
cybercrimes could be implemented through an international treaty like the Council of Europe’s
Convention on Cybercrime.217 Other articles suggest that international cooperation, like the
cooperation used for prosecuting piracy, could solve the jurisdictional issues.218
A few articles do, however, argue that the legal framework currently in place already provides adequate
tools for prosecuting cybercrimes committed by foreign parties.219 One of these articles suggests that
the effects test articulated in Calder can be used effectively to find personal jurisdiction for
cybercrimes.220 Still, other articles argued that the United States, as well as foreign nations, should each
implement their own mechanisms to adjudicate cybercrime affecting victims in their territorial
jurisdictions.221
5. Gambling
There is a cluster of articles that examines the jurisdictional issues raised by online gambling sites.222 The
majority of the articles address how to enforce domestic gambling legislation against offshore online
gambling casinos. Most recognize that, while gambling is an area of law traditionally regulated by
216 Susan W. Brenner & Bert Jaap‐Koops, Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction, 4 J. HIGH TECH. L. 1 (2004); Kelly A. Gable, Cyber‐Apocalypse Now: Securing the Internet Against Cyberterrorism and Using Universal Jurisdiction As A Deterrent, 43 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 57 (2010); William M. Stahl, The Uncharted Waters of Cyberspace: Applying the Principles of International Maritime Law to the Problem of Cybersecurity, 40 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 247 (2011); Gregor Urbas, Cybercrime, Jurisdiction and Extradition: The Extended Reach of Cross‐Border Law Enforcement, 16 No. 1 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012); Amalie M. Weber, The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 425 (2003). 217 Susan W. Brenner & Bert Jaap‐Koops, Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction, 4 J. HIGH TECH. L. 1 (2004); Amalie M. Weber, The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 425 (2003). 218 William M. Stahl, The Uncharted Waters of Cyberspace: Applying the Principles of International Maritime Law to the Problem of Cybersecurity, 40 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 247 (2011); Gregor Urbas, Cybercrime, Jurisdiction and Extradition: The Extended Reach of Cross‐Border Law Enforcement, 16 No. 1 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012). 219 John Eisinger, Script Kiddies Beware: The Long Arm of U.S. Jurisdiction to Prescribe, 59 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1507 (2002); Holly S. Hawkins, A Sliding Scale Approach for Evaluating the Terrorist Threat over the Internet, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 633 (2005); Roni G. Melamed, Exercising Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident Cyberstalkers, 37‐AUG COLO. LAW. 75 (2008). 220 Roni G. Melamed, Exercising Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident Cyberstalkers, 37‐AUG COLO. LAW. 75 (2008. 221 John Eisinger, Script Kiddies Beware: The Long Arm of U.S. Jurisdiction to Prescribe, 59 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1507 (2002). 222 Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & the Dangers of Prohibition, 11 J. COMM. L. & POL’Y 369 (2003); Jonathan Gottfried, The Federal Framework for Internet Gambling, 10 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 26 (2004); Lauren Hannon, Calling the Internet Bluff: The Interplay Between Advertising and Internet Gambling, 14 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 239 (2004); Kirk D. Homeyer, Can a State Seize an Internet Gambling Website's Domain Name? An Analysis of the Kentucky Case, 2 U.N.L.V. GAMING L.J. 107 (2011); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling's Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41, 74 (2010); Todd A. Lubben, The Federal Government and Regulation of Internet Sports Gambling, 10 SPORTS LAW. J. 317 (2003); Shekel Masoud, The Offshore Quandary: The Impact of Domestic Regulation on Licensed Offshore Gambling Companies, 25 WHITTIER L. REV. 989 (2004); Joel Weinberg, Everyone's A Winner: Regulating, Not Prohibiting, Internet Gambling, 35 SW. U. L. REV. 293 (2006).
45
states,223 the Internet has made it more difficult for states to enact and enforce anti‐gambling
statutes.224 The articles describe that this enforcement challenge has often led to the expansion of
personal jurisdiction225 and the movement of online gambling casinos offshore, where prosecution is
more difficult under current gambling legislation.226
One subset of articles proposes a federal law as the solution to the enforcement problem. These articles
first discuss how enforcing varying state laws against offshore sites is often challenging because it is
difficult to find personal jurisdiction over the site owners in a specific state court. For example, one
article addresses a specific Kentucky statute, and finds that the state cannot seize an Internet gambling
website’s domain name due to lack of personal jurisdiction.227 Articles in this group suggest that
Internet gambling should be legalized nationwide and strictly regulated.228 These articles argue that, if
online gambling is legalized, the federal government will have the authority to regulate it under the
Commerce Clause because Internet gambling would necessarily affect interstate commerce.229 The
authors do note however that this solution could create a tension between state and federal
governments.230
Another set of articles proposes alternative technological and legal solutions to allow states to enforce
their statutes against offshore actors. One article suggests using geolocation technologies to pinpoint
the location of people gambling from states that have made online gambling illegal.231 Another article
suggests imposing a mandate on credit card companies to reject payments from people in certain states
for partaking in online gambling.232 A third author argues that online gambling advertising, which can
reach multiple jurisdictions, is part of the problem, and a ban on such advertising would help slow the
223See Jonathan Gottfried, The Federal Framework for Internet Gambling, 10 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 26 (2004); Lauren Hannon, Calling the Internet Bluff: The Interplay Between Advertising and Internet Gambling, 14 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 239, 241 (2004); Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & the Dangers of Prohibition, 11 J. COMM. L. & POL’Y 369, 369‐70 (2003). 224 Lauren Hannon, Calling the Internet Bluff: The Interplay Between Advertising and Internet Gambling, 14 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 239, 241 (2004). 225Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & the Dangers of Prohibition, 11 J. COMM. L. & POL’Y 369, 370 (2003). 226 Lauren Hannon, Calling the Internet Bluff: The Interplay Between Advertising and Internet Gambling, 14 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 239, 249 (2004); see 18 U.S.C. 1084 (2003); see also Joel Weinberg, Everyone's A Winner: Regulating, Not Prohibiting, Internet Gambling, 35 SW. U. L. REV. 293, 295 (2006). 227See Kirk D. Homeyer, Can a State Seize an Internet Gambling Website's Domain Name? An Analysis of the Kentucky Case, 2 U.N.L.V. GAMING L.J. 107 (2011). 228 See, e.g., Joel Weinberg, Everyone's A Winner: Regulating, Not Prohibiting, Internet Gambling, 35 SW. U. L. REV. 293 (2006). 229 Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & the Dangers of Prohibition, 11 J. COMM. L. & POL’Y 369, 378 (2003). 230See Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & the Dangers of Prohibition, 11 J. COMM. L. & POL’Y 369, 386 (2003); Jonathan Gottfried, The Federal Framework for Internet Gambling, 10 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 26, 96 (2004). 231 Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling's Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41, 74 (2010). 232 See, e.g., Todd A. Lubben, The Federal Government and Regulation of Internet Sports Gambling, 10 SPORTS LAW. J. 317, 332 (2003).
46
growth of the industry.233 Finally, another article proposes that Internet gambling regulation be
administered by a new federal agency, the Federal Internet Gaming Agency (FIGA), which would police
online gambling websites.234
6. TaxingInternetSellers
Five articles examine how to determine jurisdiction for the purposes of taxing Internet transactions.235
These articles recognize that states have a great interest in taxing Internet transactions, but also that
uncertainty in the law of Internet jurisdiction makes it difficult for states to enforce the collections of
taxes from these new revenue streams.236
A few articles propose new models for determining when a state may exercise jurisdiction over an
Internet actor for purposes of taxation. For example, one article reasons that the physical presence test
for taxing individuals cannot deal effectively with today's economy, and that there should be a new
unified state standard for taxing.237 Another article suggests that the jurisdictional analysis should be
divided into determining (1) when a state has power to impose its tax laws on transactions that have a
relationship to economic actors within the state and (2) when a state has power to collect taxes related
to those transactions.238 The author argues that technological advancements (like automatic collections)
can be used to extend tax jurisdiction to out‐of‐state actors.239
Other articles focus on the constitutional issues surrounding an extension of tax jurisdiction. These
articles focus on the Due Process Clause's minimum contacts analysis and the issue of whether states
can tax Internet transactions under the Commerce Clause.240 One article suggests that, when creating
233 Lauren Hannon, Calling the Internet Bluff: The Interplay Between Advertising and Internet Gambling, 14 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 239, 265 (2004). 234 See Joel Weinberg, Everyone's A Winner: Regulating, Not Prohibiting, Internet Gambling, 35 SW. U. L. REV. 293 (2006). 235 H. Beau Baez III, Taxing Internet Sales: Trying to Make A Two‐Thousand‐Year‐Old Jurisdiction Test Work in the Dot‐Com Economy, 64 TAX LAW. 807, 810 (2011); Arthur J. Cockfield, Jurisdiction to Tax: A Law and Technology Perspective, 38 GA. L. REV. 85 (2003); Shane Padgett Morris, COMMENTARY: Interstate Commerce and the Future of State Sales and Use Taxes, 54 ALA. L. REV. 1393 (2003); Christopher William Pappas, Comparative U.S. & EU Approaches to E‐Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation, 31 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 325 (2002); Gary D. Sprague & Rachel Hersey, Permanent Establishments and Internet‐Enabled Enterprises: The Physical Presence and Contract Concluding Dependent Agent Tests, 38 GA. L. REV. 299 (2003). 236 See, e.g., H. Beau Baez III, Taxing Internet Sales: Trying to Make A Two‐Thousand‐Year‐Old Jurisdiction Test Work in the Dot‐Com Economy, 64 Tax Law. 807, 807 (2011); Arthur J. Cockfield, Jurisdiction to Tax: A Law and Technology Perspective, 38 Ga. L. Rev. 85 (2003). 237 See Baez, H. Beau Baez III, Taxing Internet Sales: Trying to Make A Two‐Thousand‐Year‐Old Jurisdiction Test Work in the Dot‐Com Economy, 64 Tax Law. 807 (2011). 238 Arthur J. Cockfield, Jurisdiction to Tax: A Law and Technology Perspective, 38 Ga. L. Rev. 85, 87 (2003). 239 Arthur J. Cockfield, Jurisdiction to Tax: A Law and Technology Perspective, 38 Ga. L. Rev. 85, 117 (2003). 240 See generally Shane Padgett Morris, Comment, Interstate Commerce and the Future of State Sales and Use Taxes, 54 Ala. L. Rev. 1393 (2003).
47
legislation on Internet taxation, Congress should require a de minimis presence under the Due Process
Clause.241
In contrast, one article rejects the idea that a new test or model is needed for tax jurisdiction over
Internet actors. It concludes that the current tax system is "robust and flexible" and can adequately deal
with the new developments in tax jurisdiction over Internet transactions.242
7. Torts
There is a small cluster of articles that discusses the jurisdictional issues arising from Internet tort
cases.243 While the main focus of these articles is on how to reform tort law for Internet harms, they do
generally agree that litigation relating to Internet torts is growing, and there is a need to address
jurisdiction principles for the Internet in the context of tort liability.244 One subset of articles suggests
that there is a need for a globalized regime for Internet jurisdiction because many Internet activities
take place across physical and territorial borders.245 These articles advocate either using a blend of U.S.
and European approaches to Internet jurisdiction,246 or developing a successful international
convention.247
F. OtherSignificantThemesWhile much of the literature could be categorized within the major trends discussed previously, there
were also clusters of articles that raised distinct and noteworthy themes. Below is a summary of these
other significant themes that appear within the literature.
241 Shane Padgett Morris, Comment, Interstate Commerce and the Future of State Sales and Use Taxes, 54 Ala. L. Rev. 1393, 1411 (2003). 242 Gary D. Sprague & Rachel Hersey, Symposium Jurisdiction to Tax in the New Economy: International, National, and Subnational Perspectives, 38 GA. L. REV. 299, 300 (2003) ("[T]here is no need to create a new set of rules from whole cloth to afford a jurisdiction its fair share of the tax base of an Internet‐enabled foreign enterprise."). 243 Colin Guy, Malvertising: Tort Law's Role in Ridding the Web of Malicious Advertising, 53 S. TEX. L. REV. 421 (2011); Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 267 (2006); Dorian Needham, Beyond Geography: Nuisance in Virtual Communities, 42 OTTAWA L. REV. 189 (2011); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Cybertorts and Legal Lag: An Empirical Analysis, 13 S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J. 77 (2003); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005). 244 See, e.g., Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 267 (2006); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Cybertorts and Legal Lag: An Empirical Analysis, 13 S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J. 77 (2003). 245 See Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 267, 288 (2006); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005). 246 Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005). 247 Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 267, 288 (2006).
48
1. ComparingJurisdictions
One group of articles compares how different nations apply procedural rules to disputes arising from
Internet activities.248 These articles generally demonstrate how countries have different tests for
determining personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues and that these tests lead to differing
outcomes depending on the forum selected. The majority of these articles compare the personal
jurisdiction and choice of law analyses of the United States with the laws of E.U. member states,
Australia and Canada.249 One article also examines Japanese law.250
Many of the articles in this subsection examine, in particular, how jurisdictional issues arise as a result of
differences in the substantive laws of the countries compared. Several scholars focus on e‐commerce
disputes and specifically how differences in consumer protection laws raise jurisdictional concerns.251
248 Xavier Amadei, Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with a Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content, 35 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 189 (2002); Steven C. Bennett, The "Right to Be Forgotten": Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 161 (2012); Alisdair A. Gillespie, Jurisdictional Issues Concerning Online Child Pornography, 20 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 151 (2012); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Note, Developments in the Law: The Law of Media: V. Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1031 (2007); Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 133 (2002); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005); Michael L. Rustad, Circles of E‐Consumer Trust: Old E‐America v. New E‐Europe, 16 MICH. ST. J. INT'L L. 183 (2007); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006); Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Content Controversies: A Comparative Analysis, 20 CONN. J. INT’L L. 199 (2005); Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367 (2008). 249 Xavier Amadei, Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with a Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content, 35 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 189 (2002); Steven C. Bennett, The "Right to Be Forgotten": Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 161 (2012); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Note, Developments in the Law: The Law of Media: V. Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1031 (2007); Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 133 (2002); Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005); Michael L. Rustad, Circles of E‐Consumer Trust: Old E‐America v. New E‐Europe, 16 MICH. ST. J. INT'L L. 183 (2007); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006); Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Content Controversies: A Comparative Analysis, 20 CONN. J. INT’L L. 199 (2005); Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367 (2008). 250 Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005). 251 Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 133 (2002); Michael L. Rustad, Circles of E‐Consumer Trust: Old E‐America v. New E‐Europe, 16 MICH. ST. J. INT'L L. 183 (2007); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006).
49
Another group of authors discusses how differences in defamation and free speech laws cause parties to
forum shop.252 One author examines differences in privacy laws.253
The articles present a range of ideas about how to address the differences in jurisdictional law. A
number of articles suggest that some international agreement is needed so that there is more certainty
about when an actor will be subject to personal jurisdiction in a specific nation.254 These articles also
suggest that an international body such as the International Court of Justice may need to govern
substantial choice of law disputes. Other articles however argue that international agreement is unlikely
because of the differing values and priorities of the countries involved.255 Some authors in this group
suggest that Internet actors may need to consider non‐legal tools to ensure jurisdictional certainty such
as using disclaimers on websites or instituting geo‐location technologies.256
2. Federalism
Five articles focus on the competence of individual U.S. states to regulate and adjudicate issues that
arise from cross‐border Internet activity.257 These articles argue that the Internet is challenging the
territorial nature of federalism, but generally argue that federalist principles should survive in the digital
realm.258 One author, for example, claims courts and commentators “overstate the case” for exclusive
252 Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Note, Developments in the Law: The Law of Media: V. Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1031 (2007); Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367 (2008). 253 Steven C. Bennett, The "Right to Be Forgotten": Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 161 (2012). 254 Steven C. Bennett, The "Right to Be Forgotten": Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 161 (2012); Michael L. Rustad, Circles of E‐Consumer Trust: Old E‐America v. New E‐Europe, 16 MICH. ST. J. INT'L L. 183 (2007); John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006). 255 Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005); Note, Developments in the Law: The Law of Media: V. Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1031 (2007). 256 Xavier Amadei, Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with a Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content, 35 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 189 (2002); Note, Developments in the Law: The Law of Media: V. Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1031 (2007); Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 SAN DIEGO INT'L L.J. 367 (2008). 257 Lindy Burris Arwood, Personal Jurisdiction: Are the Federal Rules Keeping Up With (Internet) Traffic?, 39 VALPARAISO L. REV. 967 (2005); Danielle Keats Citron, Minimum Contacts in a Borderless World: Voice over Internet Protocol and the Coming Implosion of Personal Jurisdiction Theory, 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1481 (2006); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010); Thomas A. Lane, Of Hammers and Saws: The Toolbox of Federalism and Sources of Law for the Web, 33 N. MEX. L. REV. 115 (2003); Michael W. Loudenslager, Allowing Another Policeman on the Information Superhighway: State Interests and Federalism on the Internet in the Face of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 BYU J. PUB. L. 191 (2003). 258 Danielle Keats Citron, Minimum Contacts in a Borderless World: Voice over Internet Protocol and the Coming Implosion of Personal Jurisdiction Theory, 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1481 (2006); Kevin F. King, Geolocation and
50
federal regulation of the Internet.259 He believes states should be able "to protect their interests and
their citizens" so long as those regulations represent "strong" state interests, and cites case law
supporting these rights.260 Another author adopts a slightly different perspective.261 He contends that
geolocation technologies are the key to ensuring the relevance of state boundaries, and thus state
sovereignty, on the Internet.262
3. Practice‐OrientedArticles
One subset of the literature provides practice‐oriented analysis of jurisdiction law.263 These articles are
typically written for a practitioner audience in order to provide them with summaries of the relevant law
and with tips on counseling clients. Some of these articles provide surveys of the major case law,264
Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010); Thomas A. Lane, Of Hammers and Saws: The Toolbox of Federalism and Sources of Law for the Web, 33 N. MEX. L. REV. 115 (2003); Michael W. Loudenslager, Allowing Another Policeman on the Information Superhighway: State Interests and Federalism on the Internet in the Face of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 BYU J. PUB. L. 191 (2003). 259 Michael W. Loudenslager, Allowing Another Policeman on the Information Superhighway: State Interests and Federalism on the Internet in the Face of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 BYU J. PUB. L. 191, 194 (2003). 260 Id. at 256. 261 Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010). 262 Id. at 41. 263 Marco Berliri, Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Cyberspace in Europe, 16‐SPG INT'L L. PRACTICUM 48 (2003); R. Michelle Boldon, Long‐Arm Statutes and Internet Jurisdiction, 67 BUS. LAW. 313 (2011); Eugenia G. Carter & Jennifer R. Racine, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: An Update, 76‐OCT WIS. LAW. 20 (2003); Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243 (2002); Keith S. Dubanevich & Gary J. Strauss, Personal Jurisdiction in a Virtual World, 66 TEX. B.J. 131 (2003); Susan Nauss Exon, The Internet Meets Obi Wan Kenobi in the Court of Next Resort, 8 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1 (2002); Alan L. Farkas, Trimming the Claws of the Internet's Jurisdictional Reach, 46 TORT TRIAL & INS. PRAC. L.J. 761 (2011); James P. George & Stephanie K. Marshall, Conflict of Laws, 64 SMU L. REV. 175 (2011); Manton M. Grier, Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 14‐JAN S.C. LAW. 21 (2003); Kent A. Halkett, Practice Tips: Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Internet‐Related Litigation, 26 LOS ANGELES LAWYER 21 (2003); Andre R. Jaglom, Liability On‐Line: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction on the Internet, or Who's in Charge Here?, 16 INT'L L. PRACTICUM 66 (2003); Scott T. Jansen, Oh, What a Tangled Web . . . The Continuing Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction Derived From Internet‐Based Contacts, 71 MO. L. REV. 177 (2006); Mark S. Kende, The Issues of E‐Mail Privacy and Cyberspace Personal Jurisdiction: What Clients Need to Know About Two Practical Constitutional Questions Regarding the Internet, 63 MONT. L. REV. 301 (2002); Mitchell J. Matorin, Website Interactivity As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction, 55‐SPG B. B.J. 26 (2011); Jeffrey P. Miller, Jurisdictional Issues in Internet Litigation, L.A. Law., 31‐SEP L.A. LAW. 24 (2008); Jeffrey Hunter Moon, New Wine, Old Wineskins: Emerging Issues in Internet‐Based Personal Jurisdiction, 42 CATH. LAW. 67 (2002); Michael L. Rustad & Diane D’Angelo, The Path of Internet Law: An Annotated Guide to Legal Landmarks, 2011 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 12 (2011); Lisa Savitt & Amelia Schmidt, The Perils of Going Global: Personal Jurisdiction May Exist for Foreign Companies in US Courts, 3 No. 2 DISP. RESOL. INT'L 134 (2009); Yasmin R. Tavakoli, David R. Yohannan, Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Where Does It Begin, and Where Does It End?, 23 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J. 3 (2011); Rhoda J. Yen, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Applying Old Principles to A "New" Medium, 76‐MAR FLA. B.J. 41 (2002). 264 Marco Berliri, Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Cyberspace in Europe, 16‐SPG INT'L L. PRACTICUM 48 (2003); R. Michelle Boldon, Long‐Arm Statutes and Internet Jurisdiction, 67 BUS. LAW. 313 (2011); Eugenia G. Carter & Jennifer R. Racine, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: An Update, 76‐OCT WIS. LAW. 20 (2003); Susan Nauss Exon, The Internet Meets Obi Wan Kenobi in the Court of Next Resort, 8 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1 (2002); Alan L. Farkas, Trimming the Claws of the Internet's Jurisdictional Reach, 46 TORT TRIAL & INS. PRAC. L.J. 761 (2011); James P. George & Stephanie K. Marshall, Conflict of Laws, 64 SMU L. REV. 175 (2011); Manton M. Grier, Jurisdiction in Cyberspace,
51
while others also discuss how the precedents may apply to hypothetical scenarios.265 Some of these
survey articles focus on specific geographic regions like the E.U.,266 Texas,267 California,268 Montana,269
Massachusetts270 and Florida.271 A few articles also provide specific guidance or create checklists that
practitioners and Internet businesses can use to evaluate their risks.272
4. State‐andCountry‐SpecificScholarship
One substantial group of articles examines the personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues
encountered and resolved by specific states, sovereign nations, and the European Union.273 These
14‐JAN S.C. LAW. 21 (2003); Kent A. Halkett, Practice Tips: Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Internet‐Related Litigation, 26 LOS ANGELES LAWYER 21 (2003); Andre R. Jaglom, Liability on‐Line: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction on the Internet, or Who's in Charge Here?, 16 INT'L L. PRACTICUM 66 (2003); Scott T. Jansen, Oh, What a Tangled Web . . . The Continuing Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction Derived From Internet‐Based Contacts, 71 MO. L. REV. 177 (2006); Mark S. Kende, The Issues of E‐Mail Privacy and Cyberspace Personal Jurisdiction: What Clients Need to Know About Two Practical Constitutional Questions Regarding the Internet, 63 MONT. L. REV. 301 (2002); Mitchell J. Matorin, Website Interactivity As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction, 55‐SPG B. B.J. 26 (2011); Jeffrey P. Miller, Jurisdictional Issues in Internet Litigation, L.A. Law., 31‐SEP L.A. LAW. 24 (2008); Yasmin R. Tavakoli, David R. Yohannan, Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Where Does It Begin, and Where Does It End?, 23 INTELL. PROP. &
TECH. L.J. 3 (2011); Rhoda J. Yen, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Applying Old Principles to A "New" Medium, 76‐MAR FLA. B.J. 41 (2002). 265 Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243 (2002); Keith S. Dubanevich & Gary J. Strauss, Personal Jurisdiction in a Virtual World, 66 TEX. B.J. 131 (2003); Jeffrey Hunter Moon, New Wine, Old Wineskins: Emerging Issues in Internet‐Based Personal Jurisdiction, 42 CATH. LAW. 67 (2002); Lisa Savitt & Amelia Schmidt, The Perils of Going Global: Personal Jurisdiction May Exist for Foreign Companies in Us Courts, 3 No. 2 Disp. Resol. Int'l 134 (2009). 266 Marco Berliri, Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Cyberspace in Europe, 16‐SPG INT'L L. PRACTICUM 48 (2003). 267 James P. George & Stephanie K. Marshall, Conflict of Laws, 64 SMU L. REV. 175 (2011). 268 Kent A. Halkett, Practice Tips: Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Internet‐Related Litigation, 26 LOS ANGELES LAWYER 21 (2003); Jeffrey P. Miller, Jurisdictional Issues in Internet Litigation, L.A. Law., 31‐SEP L.A. LAW. 24 (2008). 269 Mark S. Kende, The Issues of E‐Mail Privacy and Cyberspace Personal Jurisdiction: What Clients Need to Know About Two Practical Constitutional Questions Regarding the Internet, 63 MONT. L. REV. 301 (2002). 270 Mitchell J. Matorin, Website Interactivity As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction, 55‐SPG B. B.J. 26 (2011). 271 Rhoda J. Yen, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Applying Old Principles to A "New" Medium, 76‐MAR FLA. B.J. 41 (2002). 272 Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243 (2002); Susan Nauss Exon, The Internet Meets Obi Wan Kenobi in the Court of Next Resort, 8 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1 (2002); Mark S. Kende, The Issues of E‐Mail Privacy and Cyberspace Personal Jurisdiction: What Clients Need to Know About Two Practical Constitutional Questions Regarding the Internet, 63 MONT. L. REV. 301 (2002); 273 Joshua Beldner, How Technologically Savvy Do You Have to Be to Apply Zippo? An Approach to Internet Personal Jurisdiction After Fancaster and Edvisors, 17 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 318 (2011); Shafik Bhalloo, Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Commerce Contracts: A Canadian Perspective, 8 COMPUTER L. REV. & TECH. J. 225 (2004); Stephen W. Bosky, Note, Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri's Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer‐Smith, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 587 (2012); Scott Brinkerhoff, Traveling Through the Jungle of Personal Jurisdiction in the Internet Age, 12 SMU SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 83 (2008); J.‐G. Castel, The Internet in Light of Traditional Public and Private International Law Principles and Rules Applied in Canada, 39 CAN. Y.B. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Frank Chirino, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 SW. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97 (2005); Judy A. Clausen, Beware‐‐ Florida’s Long Arms Can Reach Through Cyberspace and Grab Unsuspecting Professionals: Personal Jurisdiction in Professional Malpractice Cases,
52
articles focus on a wide range of territorial jurisdictions; including states such as Texas,274 Georgia,275 and
Florida;276 countries like Canada,277 Malaysia,278 and Argentina;279 and the European Union.280 Although
Florida Coastal Law Review, 10 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 505 (2009); Judy A. Clausen, Eleventh Circuit Review: Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A. ‐‐ The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance, 11 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 53 (2009); Deborah S. Coldwell et. al., Franchise Law, 57 SMU L. REV. 1035 (2004); Frederic Debusseré, International Jurisdiction Over E‐Commerce Contracts in the European Union: Quid Novi Sub Sole?, 10 INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 344 (2002); Lilian Edwards, The Scotsman, the Greek, the Mauritian Company and the Internet: Where on Earth do Things Happen in Cyberspace?, 8 EDINBURGH L. REV. 99 (2004); Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006); James P. George & Stephanie K. Marshall, Conflict of Laws, 64 SMU L. REV. 175 (2011); Katherine L. Holey, Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc.: Internet Based Minimum Contacts, 34 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 219 (2009); Ryan T. Holte, What Is Really Fair: Internet Sales and the Georgia Long‐Arm Statute, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 567 (2009); Anne Sikes Hornsby, Internet Transactions and Communications: Expanding or Contracting Traditional Notions of Personal Jurisdiction, 70 ALA. LAW. 379 (Sept. 2009); Sarabdeen Jawahitha, Cyberjurisdiction and Consumer Protection in E‐Commerce, 21 COMPUTER L. & SECURITY REP. 153 (2005); Mark S. Kende, The Issues of E‐Mail Privacy and Cyberspace Personal Jurisdiction: What Clients Need to Know About Two Practical Constitutional Questions Regarding the Internet, 63 MONT. L. REV. 301 (2002); Nathaniel Lucek, From Lumber to Local Area Network: The Impact of Vermont Wholesale on Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 48 N.H. B.J. 24 (Summer 2007); Samuel O. Manteaw, Entering the Digital Marketplace: E‐Commerce and Jurisdiction in Ghana, 16 TRANSNAT'L LAW. 345 (2003); Peter D. Marketos & Jennifer Butler Wells, Personal Jurisdiction Through the Internet in Texas, 41 THE ADVOC. (TEXAS) 57 (2007); W. Dudley McCarter & Joseph C. Blanner, Personal Jurisdiction: Has the Internet Changed Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice?, 60 J. MO. B. 296 (2004); Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421 (2006); Nathan A. Olin, The A‐B‐Cs of Targeting: A Formula for Resolving Personal Jurisdiction‐Internet Issues Within the District of Massachusetts, 23 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 237 (2002); Michelle R. Osinski, Personal Jurisdiction and Internet Torts: Michigan District Courts Require “Something More” than Simply Registering Someone Else’s Trademark as a Domain Name and Posting a Web Page on the Internet to Subject a Defendant to Personal Jurisdiction, 80 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 249 (2003); Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005); Alexander B. Punger, Mapping the World Wide Web: Using Calder v. Jones to Create a Framework for Analyzing when Statements Written on the Internet Give Rise to Personal Jurisdiction, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1952 (2009); Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, The Internet and the Law: Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction over the World‐Wide Web, 52 THE ADVOCATE 53 (2010); Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, The Predictability Principle in Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine: A Case Study on the Effects of a "Generally" Too Broad, but "Specifically" Too Narrow Approach to Minimum Contacts, 57 BAYLOR L. REV. 135 (2005); Gavin R. Skene, The Extraterritorial Operation of Australian E‐Commerce Litigation, 13 TUL. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 219 (2005); Andrea Slane, Tales, Tech, and Territories: Private International Law, Globalization, and the Legal Construction of Borderlessness on the Internet, 71‐SUM LAW &
CONTEMP. PROBS. 129 (2008); Mark D. Standridge, Passive Voice: The Unclear Standards for Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in New Mexico via the World Wide Web, 35 N.M. L. REV. 679 (2005); Michael K. Steinberger, Note, Internet Solutions v. Marshall: The Overreach of Florida's Long‐Arm, 66 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1089 (2012); Gena M. Stinnett, Ignorance Is Bliss: A Comment on Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1733 (2003); Alan Toy, Cross‐Border and Extraterritorial Application of New Zealand Data Protection Laws to Online Activity, 24 N.Z. UNIS. L. REV. 222 (2010); Jeffrey A. Van Detta & Shiv K. Kapoor, Extraterritorial Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty‐First Century: A Case Study Reconceptualizing the Typical Long‐Arm Statute to Codify and Refine International Shoe After its First Sixty Years, 3 SETON HALL CIRCUIT REV. 339 (2007); Ng Hon Wah, Hong Kong Courts’ Jurisdiction to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights Infringed by Internet Contents, 35 HONG KONG L. J. 367 (2005). 274 Scott Brinkerhoff, Traveling Through the Jungle of Personal Jurisdiction in the Internet Age, 12 SMU SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 83 (2008); Deborah S. Coldwell et. al., Franchise Law, 57 SMU L. REV. 1035 (2004); James P. George & Stephanie K. Marshall, Conflict of Laws, 64 SMU L. REV. 175 (2011); Peter D. Marketos & Jennifer Butler Wells, Personal Jurisdiction Through the Internet in Texas, 41 THE ADVOC. (TEXAS) 57 (2007); Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes,
53
these articles discuss a variety of issues, such as those related to choice of law and private international
law doctrine,281 most analyze how states and regions assert personal jurisdiction over foreign Internet
defendants and explore the ways in which they may improve their jurisdictional approaches.282
5. DataHavens
A small group of articles focus on data havens in order to argue that physical geographical
determinations may be useless for jurisdiction over Internet‐based activities, particularly intellectual
property piracy.283 Two of these articles use Sealand as a model for how others may attempt to subvert
traditional nation‐state laws.284 A third suggests that regulators could mitigate damage arising from
The Internet and the Law: Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction over the World‐Wide Web, 52 THE ADVOCATE 53 (2010); Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, The Predictability Principle in Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine: A Case Study on the Effects of a "Generally" Too Broad, but "Specifically" Too Narrow Approach to Minimum Contacts, 57 BAYLOR L. REV. 135 (2005). 275 Ryan T. Holte, What Is Really Fair: Internet Sales and the Georgia Long‐Arm Statute, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 567 (2009); Jeffrey A. Van Detta & Shiv K. Kapoor, Extraterritorial Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty‐First Century: A Case Study Reconceptualizing the Typical Long‐Arm Statute to Codify and Refine International Shoe After its First Sixty Years, 3 SETON HALL CIRCUIT REV. 339 (2007). 276 Judy A. Clausen, Beware‐‐ Florida’s Long Arms Can Reach Through Cyberspace and Grab Unsuspecting Professionals: Personal Jurisdiction in Professional Malpractice Cases, Florida Coastal Law Review, 10 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 505 (2009); Michael K. Steinberger, Note, Internet Solutions v. Marshall: The Overreach of Florida's Long‐Arm, 66 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1089 (2012). 277 Shafik Bhalloo, Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Commerce Contracts: A Canadian Perspective, 8 COMPUTER L. REV. & TECH. J. 225 (2004); J.‐G. Castel, The Internet in Light of Traditional Public and Private International Law Principles and Rules Applied in Canada, 39 CAN. Y.B. INT'L L. 3 (2002); Frank Chirino, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 SW. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97 (2005); Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421 (2006); Andrea Slane, Tales, Tech, and Territories: Private International Law, Globalization, and the Legal Construction of Borderlessness on the Internet, 71‐SUM LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 129 (2008). 278 Sarabdeen Jawahitha, Cyberjurisdiction and Consumer Protection in E‐Commerce, 21 COMPUTER L. & SECURITY REP. 153 (2005). 279 Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005). 280 Frederic Debusseré, International Jurisdiction Over E‐Commerce Contracts in the European Union: Quid Novi Sub Sole?, 10 INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 344 (2002); Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421 (2006). 281 See, e.g., Andrea Slane, Tales, Tech, and Territories: Private International Law, Globalization, and the Legal Construction of Borderlessness on the Internet, 71‐SUM LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 129 (2008). 282 See, e.g., Gavin R. Skene, The Extraterritorial Operation of Australian E‐Commerce Litigation, 13 TUL. J. INT'L &
COMP. L. 219 (2005). 283 Frank Arenas, Cyberspace Jurisdiction and the Implications of Sealand, 88 IOWA L. REV. 1165 (2003); Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247 (2005); Jeffrey D. Kramer, Seafaring Data Havens: Google's Patented Pirate Ship, 2010 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. &
POL'Y 359 (2010). 284 Frank Arenas, Cyberspace Jurisdiction and the Implications of Sealand, 88 IOWA L. REV. 1165 (2003); Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247 (2005).
54
piracy facilitated by data havens by challenging pirates’ notions of citizenship, obtaining international
financial arrangements such as taxes, and using principles of international law and taxation.285
G. MiscellaneousArticlesIn addition to the themes described above, Fordham CLIP identified over 40 other themes in the
literature. Many of these themes arose in only one or two of the articles surveyed. A few emerged in
slightly larger clusters. These articles addressed a great variety of subjects related to Internet
jurisdiction. Some, for example, discuss the ethical considerations for the practice of law on the
Internet.286 Others analyze the issues surrounding the extraterritorial application of statutes
criminalizing child pornography transmitted via the Internet.287 Still others examine the ways in which
different territorial jurisdictions hold intermediaries like Internet service providers liable for content
posted on the Internet.288 These are just a few examples of the diverse areas covered by the surveyed
scholarship.
III. AnalysisoftheKeyU.S.CaseLawAlthough many cases addressed non‐Internet related facts that impacted the outcome as to jurisdiction,
the Fordham CLIP research team noted distinct trends within the body of seminal U.S. case law. The
following will discuss general findings noted through Fordham CLIP’s research, observed trends as to
case subject matter, and patterns as to applied tests and court analysis.
A. GeneralFindingsInternet jurisdiction disputes are most prominent within certain federal circuits, as well as within the
subset area of personal jurisdiction. Further, precedent is observably shaped by non‐Internet case law
and traditional principles of jurisdiction.
285 Jeffrey D. Kramer, Seafaring Data Havens: Google's Patented Pirate Ship, 2010 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 359 (2010). 286 Daniel Backer, Choice of Law in Online Legal Ethics: Changing a Vague Standard for Attorney Advertising on the Internet, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 2409 (2002); Judy A. Clausen, Beware‐‐ Florida’s Long Arms Can Reach Through Cyberspace and Grab Unsuspecting Professionals: Personal Jurisdiction in Professional Malpractice Cases, Florida Coastal Law Review, 10 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 505 (2009); Kristine M. Moriarty, Law Practice and the Internet: The Ethical Implications That Arise from Multijurisdictional Online Legal Service, 39 IDAHO L. REV. 431 (2003). 287 Christopher L. Blakesley & Dan E. Stigall, The Myopia of U.S. v. Martinelli: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the 21st Century, 39 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV. 1 (2007); Christopher L. Blakesley & Dan Stigall, Wings for Talons: The Case for the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction over Sexual Exploitation of Children Through Cyberspace, 50 WAYNE L. REV. 109 (2004). 288 Xavier Amadei, Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with a Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content, 35 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 189 (2002); Mark MacCarthy, What Payment Intermediaries Are Doing About Online Liability and Why It Matters, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1037 (2010); Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003).
55
1. UnequalDistributionAmongtheCircuits
During its analysis, Fordham CLIP noted that Internet jurisdiction issues trend toward specific federal
circuits. The circuit‐by‐circuit case distribution based upon the search methodology described above in
Table 4 is as follows:289
First Circuit 117
Second Circuit 389
Third Circuit 257
Fourth Circuit 283
Fifth Circuit 195
Sixth Circuit 289
Seventh Circuit 192
Eighth Circuit 195
Ninth Circuit 884
Tenth Circuit 235
Eleventh Circuit 251
District of Columbia Circuit 89
Federal Circuit 6
Specifically, these jurisdictional questions appear most frequently within the Ninth Circuit, which heard
more than twice the number of Internet jurisdiction cases than any other federal circuit. Approximately
25 percent of the 41 seminal cases identified originate from the Ninth Circuit. The second most
common circuit for Internet jurisdiction cases is the Second Circuit. Conversely, there are comparably
few Internet jurisdiction cases from the First Circuit, the District of Columbia Circuit or the Federal
Circuit, suggesting that these are less important circuits for Internet jurisdiction matters. With respect
to the remaining federal circuits, there appears to be a relatively equal distribution of Internet
jurisdiction cases among them.
289 The circuit‐by‐circuit distribution numbers include false positives appearing within the search results prior to filtering, as well as duplicate cases appearing within multiple search categories. As a result, the numbers are meaningful only as an indicator for broad trends in the distribution of cases across the circuits.
56
2. NarrowRangeofJurisdiction
Within the seminal cases identified by the Fordham CLIP team, personal jurisdiction was the sole area
that the courts addressed. Each of the 41 seminal cases confronts matters relating to personal
jurisdiction; none of the decisions approached questions regarding choice of law or enforcement
matters. This central focus by U.S. courts on personal jurisdiction in Internet matters was surprising.
3. SignificantCitedNon‐InternetCases
Of the 41 seminal cases within the dataset, 15 percent are wholly unrelated to the Internet: Brainerd v.
Governors of Univ. of Alberta;290 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz;291 Calder v. Jones;292 Dakota Indus., Inc.
v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc.;293 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown;294 and Trujillo v.
Williams.295 This trend demonstrates that non‐Internet, traditional jurisdiction cases remain important
to U.S. courts when Internet jurisdiction issues arise and that new Internet‐focused tests and analytical
frameworks are not separately and exclusively applied.296
B. SubjectMatterTrends297The dataset of seminal U.S. case law further demonstrates that personal jurisdiction is particularly at
issue in cases involving intellectual property disputes and defamation on the Internet.
1. IntellectualProperty
A majority (62%) of the seminal cases identified by the Fordham CLIP team centered on disputes
regarding intellectual property. Specifically, 43% of the cases were related to trademarks;298 20%
290 873 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1989). 291 471 U.S. 462 (1985). 292 465 U.S. 783 (1984). 293 946 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1991). 294 564 U. S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011). 295 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006). 296 We note that two other cases appearing within the dataset of seminal case law were decided on motions to dismiss. See Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002), and Sportschannel New England Ltd. P'ship v. Fancaster, Inc., 2010 WL 3895177 (D.Mass. 2010). The standard of review required a determination that the facts construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. A third case, Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed.Cir. 2005), related to a dispute over discovery and only tangentially addressed the issue of the court’s jurisdiction, instead, sending the case back to the district court to provide a reasoned opinion. 297 The analysis in the following section excludes the 6 cases that were unrelated to the Internet as described in Section III(A)(3). The two cases decided on motions to dismiss [Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002), and Sportschannel New England Ltd. P'ship v. Fancaster, Inc., 2010 WL 3895177 (D.Mass. 2010)] were included for the analysis of subject matter trends, but were excluded from the analysis of cases addressing Zippo and Calder. The discovery case, Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed.Cir. 2005), was similarly included to determine subject matter trends and excluded for the analysis of Zippo and Calder. 298 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000); Be2LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011); Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002); Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003); Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011); CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997); Lindgren v. GDT, 312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004);
57
related to copyright;299 and 9% related to patents.300 However, despite observing a trend that
intellectual property seemed to generate more Internet jurisdiction disputes than other subject matters,
there appears to be no special rule developed by the courts specific for adjudicating those jurisdictional
issues specifically involving intellectual property.
2. Defamation
Defamation cases were also prevalent within the seminal case dataset, with 8 of 35 cases relating to the
intentional tort.301 As discussed in Section III(C)(1), there is special emphasis in defamation cases on the
“effects test” for establishing personal jurisdiction as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in
Calder v. Jones.302 Nevertheless, half of the defamation cases within the data set still cited Zippo
Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,303 even if Calder was also considered and applied.304
C. TestsApplied–Post‐ZippoTrends305The data also demonstrates several patterns with respect to the tests that courts apply in cases
involving Internet jurisdiction. The most prominent is the tremendous emphasis on Zippo
Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.306 Prior to the Zippo decision in 1997, the landscape in the
area of Internet jurisdiction consisted most notably of three precedential court decisions: Calder v.
Jones,307 Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc.,308 and CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson.309 Zippo’s
Millennium Enter. v. Millennium Music, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999); Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002); Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006); Sportschannel New England Ltd. P'ship v. Fancaster, Inc., 2010 WL 3895177 (D.Mass. 2010); Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003); and Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). 299 ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002); Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002); Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, Inc., 999 F.Supp. 636 (E.D.Pa.1998); Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010); CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011); Mavrix v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011); and Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999). 300 ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC, 34 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.S.C. 1999); Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999); and Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed.Cir. 2005). 301 Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007); Bombliss v. Cornelsen, 824 N.E.2d 1175 (2005); Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 611 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2010); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002); Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011); Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010); and Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002). 302 465 U.S. 783 (1984). 303 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). 304 Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002); and Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011). 305 The analysis in the following section excludes from the 41 seminal cases identified: (i) the 6 cases that were unrelated to the Internet (see Section III(A)(3)); (ii) the 3 cases that merit distinction from the others due to standard of review or procedural focus (see note 296); and (iii) Zippo itself as the Section relates to Zippo reliance and the identified seminal decisions that follow. Thus, the numerical figures in the following analysis are based upon a total of 31 cases that remain after the aforementioned were excluded. 306 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). 307 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (creating the “effects test” for establishing personal jurisdiction). 308 937 F.Supp. 161 (D.Conn.1996). 309 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) (adjudicating matters of Internet jurisdiction through use of traditional jurisdictional standards).
58
current prominence within the U.S. judiciary’s modern approach to Internet jurisdiction demonstrates
an almost universal rejection of Inset Systems, which held that “passive” Internet advertising might
suffice as sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.310 To the contrary, and as discussed below, the
“effects test” articulated in Calder remains viable within modern Internet jurisdiction jurisprudence.
With respect to the seminal cases in the dataset that did not rely on either Zippo or Calder, the majority
applied traditional offline principles of jurisdiction to the Internet setting such as the Sixth Circuit in
CompuServe.311
1. Calder’sEnduringTest
A substantial number of important Internet jurisdiction decisions cite to Calder and apply its “effects
test,” demonstrating that Calder remains vitally important. With respect to cases within the dataset
that did not apply Zippo, most applied either Calder’s “effects test”312 explicitly313 or applied the
“express aiming” or “purposeful direction” element of the Calder “effects test.”314 The Fordham CLIP
team also noted that Calder was principally central in cases involving intentional torts, with significant
application of Calder in cases addressing claims of online defamation.315
2. Zippo’sTest
The results show that Zippo stands with Calder as one of the two leading tests applied by courts with
respect to Internet jurisdiction. It is important to note, however, that courts apply Zippo and Calder
both concurrently and separately and do not construe the two tests as mutually exclusive.316
Notwithstanding, the Fordham CLIP team identified some distinct trends in the application of the Zippo
“sliding scale” as it was addressed in court decisions; namely, the approach is most apt for analysis of
specific, rather than general, personal jurisdiction.317
310 Id. 311 See, e.g., Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007); Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2008); Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010); Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704 (8th Cir . 2003); MacNeil v. Trambert, 932 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). 312 See Section II(A)(1)(i). 313 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000); Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010); CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011); Mavrix v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011); Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006); and Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004). 314 Be2LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011) (deliberate targeting); Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (purposeful direction); and Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (express aiming). 315 Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002); Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011); Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010); and Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002). 316 See, e.g., Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471‐2 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Nor is the Zippo scale, as has been suggested, in tension with the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones for intentional torts.”). 317 In examining matters of personal jurisdiction, a court may assert either general or specific jurisdiction (Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). General jurisdiction requires “continuous and systematic” contacts (see, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414‐15 (1984)). With respect to specific jurisdiction, there are variant tests. However, most generally articulate one which requires that “minimum
59
Some courts within the dataset were not detailed as to application of Zippo with respect to its fit within
a traditional jurisdiction analytical framework.318 However, other courts are more nuanced and state
explicitly whether they were applying Zippo for specific jurisdiction as compared to general jurisdiction.
One leading approach is that Zippo has limited value in the general jurisdiction context.319 Conversely,
there is also a significant focus on the application of Zippo for specific jurisdiction analysis.320
3.ApplicationsofZippo
In addition to the above distinction as to when Zippo is most often precedential, the dataset of seminal
cases also evidenced certain trends with respect to how the Zippo sliding scale itself is most frequently
applied.
i. UnadaptedApplication
Many decisions within the dataset simply conducted a factual analysis to determine whether jurisdiction
exists by virtue of Internet activity without adaptation of the Zippo test.321 Courts’ factual analyses
contacts” exist either in the form of “purposeful availment” or “purposeful direction” on the part of the defendant (see, e.g., Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259 (“The nonresident defendant must either: [i] purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or [ii] perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”). 318 See, e.g., Bombliss v. Cornelsen, 824 N.E.2d 1175 (2005) (made no distinction between general and specific jurisdiction). 319 Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Because Zippo concerns specific jurisdiction, it does not assist much with regard to whether activities satisfied “solicitation plus” test for general jurisdiction); Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25, 36 n.5 (1st Cir. 2010) (In reference to Zippo, “given the considerably more stringent standard for establishing general jurisdiction, we find most helpful those decisions addressing whether website activity supports an exercise of general, rather than specific, jurisdiction.”); Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704 (8th Cir . 2003) (“We agree with the courts that do not apply the ‘sliding scale’ presumptively for cases of general jurisdiction.”); and Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Zippo’s scale does more work with specific jurisdiction‐the context in which it was originally conceived.”). It is important to note, however, that there were outliers within the dataset, where Zippo was specifically applied in the general jurisdiction context despite the predominant approach (ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC, 34 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.S.C. 1999); Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999)). 320 ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002); Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002); Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003); Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997); Lindgren v. GDT, 312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004); Millennium Enter. v. Millennium Music, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999); Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002); Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003); and Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002). Two cases within the dataset did not apply Zippo in their specific jurisdiction analyses (Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2008), and MacNeil v. Trambert, 932 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)). However, because both cases regard disputes as to eBay transactions, and eBay is not a party, its website is not at issue and, thus, Zippo would not come into play. 321 Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002); Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, Inc., 999 F.Supp. 636 (E.D.Pa.1998); Bombliss v. Cornelsen, 824 N.E.2d 1175 (2005); Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997); ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC, 34 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.S.C. 1999) (focused on the level of commercial activity after classifying into the intermediate category); Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999); and Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (factual analysis determining a low level of interactivity).
60
either (i) determine whether to place the activity onto the extreme ends of the sliding scale, in the
“passive” or “clearly conducts business” categories, or (ii) categorize the activity in the middle category,
gauging the level of interactivity and nature and quality of the commercial activity.322
ii. AdaptedApplication
Numerous decisions within the dataset, however, adapted and expanded the Zippo test. The Fordham
CLIP team identified a connection between adaptation of the analytical framework established in Zippo
and categorization of particular Internet activity on its sliding scale. Most adaptations and additions to
the Zippo sliding scale stem from judicial review of the level of interactivity and commercial nature of
the online activity when categorizing it in the intermediate category of the Zippo sliding scale.323
Few cases within the dataset articulated variations or additions to Zippo when categorizing the activity
on either end of the sliding scale. One notable example, however, is ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv.
Consultants, Inc.324 Despite classifying the website as “passive,” the court promulgated a three‐part test
to adapt the Zippo model, stating that “[a] State may, consistent with due process, exercise judicial
power over a person outside of the State when that person (1) directs electronic activity into the State,
(2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that
activity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's
courts.”325 The Fordham CLIP team noted that, within the Fourth Circuit, there is a distinct tendency to
follow ALS Scan and apply its test in conjunction with the Zippo sliding scale model.326 In order to find
jurisdiction, these courts determine where Internet activity fits within the Zippo sliding scale and then
look to see that each of the three elements established in ALS Scan are also met.
As a concluding remark, numerous cases within the dataset follow Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.327 and
apply an “intent to target” or “express aiming” standard in union with the Zippo sliding scale.328 This
seems to blur the tests of Calder and Zippo, incorporating into the Zippo analysis an overlapping
322 Id. 323 Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) (applying ALS Scan’s three‐part test adapting the Zippo model) (see note 326); Lindgren v. GDT, 312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004) (after classifying into the intermediate category, focused upon intent to purposefully target forum state); Millennium Enter. v. Millennium Music, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999) (after classifying into the intermediate category, focuses upon whether there was deliberate action within the forum state and whether defendant purposefully directed its conduct at residents of the forum state); and Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (factual analysis as to whether interactive website directly targeted forum state). 324 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002). 325 ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002); 326 Indeed, the other Fourth Circuit cases within the seminal case dataset follow and apply ALS Scan (Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003); Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002)). 327 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997). 328 ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002); Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997); ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC, 34 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.S.C. 1999); Lindgren v. GDT, 312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004); Millennium Enter. v. Millennium Music, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999); Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003); and Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002.
61
component of the Calder effects test.329 As a result of this blurring, the body of case law within the
seminal decision dataset does not reflect one clear, reconcilable framework for Internet jurisdiction
issues as approached uniformly by U.S. courts.
IV. ConclusionThe research results show that there is a substantial body of scholarship published over the last decade
that addresses jurisdictional issues for Internet activity. The majority of this scholarship discusses all
three aspects of jurisdiction law—personal jurisdiction, choice of law and jurisdiction to enforce—
within the individual articles. In addition, taken together, the literature treats a noticeably wide variety
of legal areas including, for example, analyses of specific cases, particular issues related to e‐commerce,
and the regulation of online speech. Across the literature, the scholarship tends to concentrate on
questions related to personal jurisdiction. Notably, the scholarship seems most interested in how courts
determine whether they have power over litigants and whether that determination is fair and soundly
reached. But, overall, the literature does not appear to have a consensus on an approach or solution
that cuts across the varied areas of law addressed by the scholarship. In effect, the results of the review
of academic scholarship show that Internet jurisdiction is as varied as the legal issues and fields of law it
permeates.
With respect to U.S. case law, the research indicates that issues surrounding Internet jurisdiction
gravitate toward the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit more so than other federal circuits. Further,
the research demonstrates that, contrary to the body of academic literature, U.S. courts predominantly
adjudicate matters of personal jurisdiction in Internet cases rather than other subsets of jurisdiction,
and that Internet jurisdiction issues trend toward intellectual property and defamation cases. With
regard to how Internet jurisdictional matters are settled within U.S. jurisprudence, the research results
indicate that the Zippo and Calder tests remain the dominant ones applied, but that these tests are not
mutually‐exclusive. Although Zippo is most often applied in matters of specific jurisdiction, there exists
a varied and, at times, blurred framework which incorporates the Zippo sliding scale and Calder’s effects
test, as well as traditional standards for personal jurisdiction. Therefore, although the landscape for
Internet jurisdiction matters has clear, predominant legal standards and tests, on the whole, when and
how these are applied by U.S. courts lacks uniformity.
329 See Section II(A)(1)(i).
62
BIBLIOGRAPHYOFACADEMICLITERATURE
Michael P. Allen, In Rem Jurisdiction from Pennoyer to Shaffer to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 11 GEO. MASON L. REV. 243 (2002). Xavier Amadei, Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with a Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content, 35 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 189 (2002). Jesse Anderson, Toys "R" Us, the Third Circuit, and A Standard for Jurisdictional Discovery Involving Internet Activities, 9 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 471 (2003). Andrea Antonelli, Applicable Law Aspects of Copyright Infringement on the Internet: What Principles should Apply?, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 147 (2003). Frank Arenas, Cyberspace Jurisdiction and the Implications of Sealand, 88 IOWA L. REV. 1165 (2003). Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intellectual Property Disputes, 5 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 63 (2003). Lindy Burris Arwood, Personal Jurisdiction: Are the Federal Rules Keeping Up With (Internet) Traffic?, 39 VALPARAISO L. REV. 967 (2005). Ray August, International Cyber‐Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 39 AM. BUS. L.J. 531 (2002). Bunmi Awoyemi, Zippo is Dying, Should It Be Dead? The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction by U.S. Federal Courts Over Non‐Domiciliary Defendants in Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Arising out of Cyberspace, 9 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 37 (2005). Daniel Backer, Choice of Law in Online Legal Ethics: Changing a Vague Standard for Attorney Advertising on the Internet, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 2409 (2002). H. Beau Baez III, Taxing Internet Sales: Trying to Make A Two‐Thousand‐Year‐Old Jurisdiction Test Work in the Dot‐Com Economy, 64 TAX LAW. 807 (2011). Anderson Bailey, Purposefully Directed: Foreign Judgments and the Calder Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 671 (2007). Gregg M. Barbakoff, Civil Procedure: No Shoes, No Service? Why Cybersquatting Has Outgrown the International Shoe Framework for Personal Jurisdiction, and the Need for Legislative Reform, 6 7TH CIR. REV. 374 (2011). Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006).
63
Peter Bartlett, Gutnick Shows the Need for New International Jurisdictional Principles, 20‐WTR COMM. LAW. 16 (2003). Elizabeth R. Beardsley, Poachers With PCs: The United States’ Potential Obligations and Ability to Enforce Wildlife Trading Prohibitions Against Foreign Traders Who Advertise on eBay, 25 U.C.L.A. J. ENVTL. L. &
POL’Y 1 (2006‐2007). J. Brian Beckham, Forum Selection Clauses in Clickwrap Agreements, 14 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 151 (2006). Joshua Beldner, How Technologically Savvy Do You Have to Be to Apply Zippo? An Approach to Internet Personal Jurisdiction After Fancaster and Edvisors, 17 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 318 (2011). Ayelet Ben‐Ezer & Ariel L. Bendor, Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review, and International Conflict of Laws, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 2089 (2004). Steven C. Bennett, The "Right to Be Forgotten": Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 161 (2012). Marco Berliri, Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Cyberspace in Europe, 16‐SPG INT'L L. PRACTICUM 48 (2003). Paul Schiff Berman, Global Legal Pluralism, 80 S. CAL. L. REV. 1155 (2007). Paul Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 311 (2002). Paul Schiff Berman, Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1819 (2005). Shafik Bhalloo, Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Commerce Contracts: A Canadian Perspective, 8 COMPUTER L. REV. & TECH. J. 225 (2004). Oren Bigos, Jurisdiction Over Cross‐Border Wrongs on the Internet, 54 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 585 (2005). Christopher L. Blakesley & Dan E. Stigall, The Myopia of U.S. v. Martinelli: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the 21st Century, 39 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV. 1 (2007). Christopher L. Blakesley & Dan Stigall, Wings for Talons: The Case for the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction over Sexual Exploitation of Children Through Cyberspace, 50 WAYNE L. REV. 109 (2004). Michael Bogdan, Web‐Sites, Establishment and Private International Law, 17 K.C.L.J. 97 (2006). R. Michelle Boldon, Long‐Arm Statutes and Internet Jurisdiction, 67 BUS. LAW. 313 (2011). Shawn A. Bone, Private Harms in the Cyber‐World: The Conundrum of Choice of Law for Defamation Posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 279 (2005).
64
Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a “Targeting” Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E‐Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT’L L. REV. 241 (2006). Patrick J. Borchers, Internet Libel: The Consequences of a Non‐Rule Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 473 (2004). Stephen W. Bosky, Note, Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri's Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer‐Smith, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 587 (2012). Susan W. Brenner & Bert‐Jaap Koops, Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction, 4 J. HIGH TECH. L. 1 (2004). Kyle W. Brenton, Bonghits4jesus.com? Scrutinizing Public School Authority over Student Cyberspeech Through the Lens of Personal Jurisdiction, 92 MINN. L. REV. 1206 (2008). Scott Brinkerhoff, Traveling Through the Jungle of Personal Jurisdiction in the Internet Age, 12 SMU SCI. &
TECH. L. REV. 83 (2008). Sheldon Burshtein, Jurisdiction in Internet Trade‐Mark and Domain Name Disputes, 20 INTELL. PROP. J. 1 (2006). Andrew Cabasso, Note, Piercing Pennoyer with the Sword of A Thousand Truths: Jurisdictional Issues in the Virtual World, 22 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 383 (2012). Jason W. Callen, Asserting In Personam Jurisdiction over Foreign Cybersquatters, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1837 (2002). Joseph A. Cannataci & Jeanne Pia Mifsud‐Bonnici, Weaving the Mesh: Finding Remedies in Cyberspace, 21 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 59 (2007). Eugenia G. Carter & Jennifer R. Racine, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: An Update, 76‐OCT WIS. LAW. 20 (2003). Teresa J. Cassidy, Civil Procedure‐Effects of the "Effects Test": Problems of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet; Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008), 9 WYO. L. REV. 575 (2009). J.‐G. Castel, The Internet in Light of Traditional Public and Private International Law Principles and Rules Applied in Canada, 39 CAN. Y.B. INT'L L. 3 (2002). Anupam Chander, Facebookistan, 90 N.C. L. REV. 1807 (2012). Anupam Chander, Trade 2.0, 34 YALE J. INT'L L. 281 (2009). Cindy Chen, United States and European Union Approaches to Internet Jurisdiction and Their Impact on E‐Commerce, 25 U. PA. J. INT'L ECON. L. 423 (2004). Warren B. Chik, U.S. Jurisdictional Rules of Adjudication Over Business Conducted Via the Internet‐‐Guidelines and a Checklist for the E‐Commerce Merchant, 10 TUL. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 243 (2002).
65
Frank Chirino, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 SW. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97 (2005). Matthew Chivvis, Reexamining the Yahoo! Litigations: Toward an Effects Test for Determining International Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 699 (2007). Roxanne E. Christ & Curtis A. Peele, Virtual Worlds: Personal Jurisdiction and Click‐Wrap Licenses, 20 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J. 1 (2008). Danielle Keats Citron, Minimum Contacts in a Borderless World: Voice over Internet Protocol and the Coming Implosion of Personal Jurisdiction Theory, 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1481 (2006). Judy A. Clausen, Beware‐‐ Florida’s Long Arms Can Reach Through Cyberspace and Grab Unsuspecting Professionals: Personal Jurisdiction in Professional Malpractice Cases, Florida Coastal Law Review, 10 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 505 (2009). Judy A. Clausen, Eleventh Circuit Review: Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A. ‐‐ The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance, 11 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 53 (2009). Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet ‐ A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 223 (2002). Arthur J. Cockfield, Jurisdiction to Tax: A Law and Technology Perspective, 38 GA. L. REV. 85 (2003). Deborah S. Coldwell et. al., Franchise Law, 57 SMU L. REV. 1035 (2004). Matt Collins, Laws Without Borders, 80 L. INST. J. 46 (2006). Robert J. Condlin, "Defendant Veto" or "Totality of the Circumstances"? It's Time for the Supreme Court to Straighten Out the Personal Jurisdiction Standard Once Again, 54 CATH. U. L. REV. 53 (2004). Blake Cooper, The U.S. Libel Law Conundrum and the Necessity of Defensive Corporate Measures in Lessening International Internet Libel Liability, 21 CONN. J. INT'L L. 127 (2005). Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. POL'Y 2 (2007). Joann K. Coston, Embrace the New, But Don’t Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the New Internet Age, 34 S.U. L. REV. 249 (2007). Victoria C. Crawford, A Proposal to Use Alternative Dispute Resolution as a Foundation to Build an Independent Global Cyberlaw Jurisdiction Using Business to Consumer Transactions as a Model, 25 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 383 (2002). Ronald R. Darbee, Personal Jurisdiction As A Defense to the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 41 MCGEORGE L. REV. 345 (2010).
66
Kaustav M. Das, Ph.D., Forum Selection Clauses in Consumer Clickwrap and Browsewrap Agreements and the “Reasonably Communicated” Test, 77 WASH. L. REV. 481 (2002). Nathan J. Davis, Presumed Assent: The Judicial Acceptance of Clickwrap, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 577 (2007). Philip Adam Davis, The Defamation of Choice‐of‐Law in Cyberspace: Countering the View that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is Inadequate to Navigate the Borderless Reaches of the Intangible Frontier, 54 FED. COMM. L.J. 339 (2002). Juanita Darling, Forum Shopping and the Cyber Pamphleteer: Banamex V. Rodriguez, 8 Comm. L. & Pol'y 361 (2003). Cherie M. Dawson, Creating Borders on the Internet: Free Speech, the United States, and International Jurisdiction, 44 VIRGINIA J. INT’L L. 637 (2004). Frederic Debusseré, International Jurisdiction Over E‐Commerce Contracts in the European Union: Quid Novi Sub Sole?, 10 INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 344 (2002). Hasan A. Deveci, Personal Jurisdiction: Where Cyberspace Meets the Real World‐‐Part I, 21 COMPUTER L. &
SEC. REV. 464 (2005). Hasan A. Deveci, Personal Jurisdiction: Where Cyberspace Meets the Real World‐‐Part II, 22 COMPUTER L. & SEC. REV. 39 (2006). John Di Bari, A Survey of the Internet Jurisdiction Universe, 18 N.Y. INT’L L. REV. 123 (2005). Keith S. Dubanevich & Gary J. Strauss, Personal Jurisdiction in a Virtual World, 66 TEX. B.J. 131 (2003). Christine Duh, Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 359 (2002). Catherine Ross Dunham, Zippo‐ing the Wrong Way: How the Internet has Misdirected the Federal Courts in Their Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 43 U.S.F. L. REV. 559 (2009). Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized ???, 31 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 225 (2003). Lilian Edwards, The Scotsman, the Greek, the Mauritian Company and the Internet: Where on Earth do Things Happen in Cyberspace?, 8 EDINBURGH L. REV. 99 (2004). Zohar Efroni, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy: New Opportunities For International Forum Shopping?, 26 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 335 (2003). John Eisinger, Script Kiddies Beware: The Long Arm of U.S. Jurisdiction to Prescribe, 59 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1507 (2002). Emily Ekland, Note, Scaling Back Zippo: The Downside to the Zippo Sliding Scale and Proposed Alternatives to Its Uses, 5 ALB. GOV'T L. REV. 380 (2012).
67
Susan Nauss Exon, The Internet Meets Obi Wan Kenobi in the Court of Next Resort, 8 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1 (2002). Susan Nauss Exon, Personal Jurisdiction: Lost in Cyberspace?, 8 COMP. L. REV. & TECH. J. 21 (2003). Joshua A.T. Fairfield, Mixed Reality: How the Laws of Virtual Worlds Govern Everyday Life, 27 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 55 (2012). Alan L. Farkas, Trimming the Claws of the Internet's Jurisdictional Reach, 46 TORT TRIAL & INS. PRAC. L.J. 761 (2011). Kevin Fayle, Sealand Ho! Music Pirates, Data Havens, and the Future of International Copyright Law, 28 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 247 (2005). Michelle Feldman, Putting the Brakes on Libel Tourism: Examining the Effects Test As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction Under New York's Libel Terrorism Protection Act, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 2457 (2010). Laura S. Ferster, Griffis v. Luban: A Red Herring in the High Seas of Personal Jurisdiction, 29 WM. MITCHELL
L. REV. 343 (2002). Brian Fitzgerald, Negotiating ‘American Legal Hegemony’ in the Transnational World of Cyberspace, 27 MELB. U. L. REV. 590 (2003). Sherry H. Flax & Sarah F. Lacey, Access It, and You're Stuck with It, 43‐JUN MD. B.J. 40 (2010). C. Douglas Floyd & Shima Baradaran‐Robison, Toward a Unified Test of Personal Jurisdiction in an Era of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance of Purpose and Effects, 81 IND. L.J. 601 (2006). Thomas C. Folsom, Defining Cyberspace (Finding Real Virtue in the Place of Virtual Reality), 9 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 75 (2007). Jonathan A. Franklin, International Jurisdiction and Judgments in the Era of Global Networks: Irrelevance of, Goals for, and Comments on the Current Proposals, 77 CHI.‐KENT L. REV. 1213 (2002). William E. Frazier, Jr., When the International Shoe Doesn’t Fit: Online Auctions and the Jurisdictional Problems that Follow, 25 THOMAS JEFFERSON L. REV. 493 (2003). Jonathan D. Frieden & Sean Patrick Roche, E‐Commerce: Legal Issues of the Online Retailer in Virginia, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (2006). Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & the Dangers of Prohibition, 11 J. COMM. L. & POL’Y 369 (2003). David M. Fritch, Beyond Zippo’s “Sliding Scale”‐‐The Third Circuit Clarifies Internet‐based Personal Jurisdiction Analysis, 49 VILLANOVA L. REV. 931 (2004).
68
Anita B. Frohlich, Copyright Infringement in the Internet Age‐‐Primetime for Harmonized Conflict‐of‐Law Rules?, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 851 (2009). A. Michael Froomkin, ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"‐‐Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67 BROOK. L. REV. 605 (2002). Kelly A. Gable, Cyber‐Apocalypse Now: Securing the Internet Against Cyberterrorism and Using Universal Jurisdiction As A Deterrent, 43 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 57 (2010). Fred Galves, Virtual Justice As Reality: Making the Resolution of E‐Commerce Disputes More Convenient, Legitimate, Efficient, and Secure, 2009 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 1 (2009). Nathan W. Garnett, Dow Jones & Co. V. Gutnick: Will Australia’s Long Jurisdictional Reach Chill Internet Speech World‐Wide?, 13 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 61 (2004). Richard L. Garnett, Trademarks and the Internet: Resolution of International IP Disputes by Unilateral Application of U.S. Laws, 30 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 925 (2005). James P. George & Stephanie K. Marshall, Conflict of Laws, 64 SMU L. REV. 175 (2011). Tim Gerlach, Using Internet Content Filters to Create E‐Borders to Aid in International Choice of Law and Jurisdiction, 26 WHITTIER L. REV. 899 (2005). Saby Ghoshray, Charting the Future of Online Dispute Resolution: An Analysis of the Constitutional and Jurisdictional Quandary, 38 U. TOL. L. REV. 317 (2006). Stephen Gillers, A Profession if You Can Keep It: How Information Technology and Fading Borders are Reshaping the Law Marketplace and What We Should Do About It, 63 HASTINGS L.J. 953 (2012). Lorna E. Gillies, Addressing the “Cyberspace Fallacy”: Targeting the Jurisdiction of an Electronic Consumer Contract, 16 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 242 (2008). Lorna E. Gillies, Jurisdiction for Cross‐Border Breach of Personality and Defamation: Edate Advertising and Martinez, 61 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 1007 (2012). Alisdair A. Gillespie, Jurisdictional Issues Concerning Online Child Pornography, 20 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 151 (2012). Jane C. Ginsburg, The Cyberian Captivity of Copyright: Territoriality and Authors’ Rights in a Networked World, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 185 (2003). Jonathan Gottfried, The Federal Framework for Internet Gambling, 10 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 26 (2004). Jenny L. Grantz, A Culture Without Consequences? Redefining Purposeful Availment for Wrongful Online Conduct, 63 HASTINGS L.J. 1135 (2012). Tricia Leigh Gray, Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: The Classic Jurisdiction Analysis in a New Setting, 1 J. HIGH TECH. L. 85 (2002).
69
Marc H. Greenberg, A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the World Market, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1191 (2003). Adam M. Greenfield, Reviving the Distinction Between in Rem and in Personam Jurisdiction by Way of the Anti‐Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 35 AIPLA Q. J. 29 (2007). Carrie Greenplate, Of Protection and Sovereignty: Applying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Extraterritorially to Protect Embedded Software Outsourced to China, 57 AM. U. L. REV. 129 (2007). Richard K. Greenstein, The Action Bias in American Law: Internet Jurisdiction and the Triumph of Zippo Dot Com, 80 TEMPLE L. REV. 21 (2007). John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1861 (2008). Manton M. Grier, Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 14‐JAN S.C. LAW. 21 (2003). Howard J. Grooters, Territorial Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 4 OR. REV. INT'L L. 3 (2002). Colin Guy, Malvertising: Tort Law's Role in Ridding the Web of Malicious Advertising, 53 S. TEX. L. REV. 421 (2011). Rinat Hadas, International Internet Jurisdiction: Whose Law is Right?, 15 FLA. J. INT'L L. 299 (2002). Andrew F. Halaby, Making Sense of “Express Aiming” After Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 37 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 625 (2005). Kent A. Halkett, Practice Tips: Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Internet‐Related Litigation, 26 L.A. LAW. 21 (2003). Haitham A. Haloush, Jurisdictional Dilemma in Online Disputes: Rethinking Traditional Approaches, 42 INT'L LAW. 1129 (2008). Lauren Hannon, Calling the Internet Bluff: The Interplay Between Advertising and Internet Gambling, 14 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 239 (2004). Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2371 (2006). Holly S. Hawkins, A Sliding Scale Approach for Evaluating the Terrorist Threat over the Internet, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 633 (2005). Allyson W. Haynes, The Short Arm of the Law: Simplifying Personal Jurisdiction Over Virtually Present Defendants, 64 U. MIAMI L. REV. 133 (2009). Jason Healey & Hannah Pitts, Applying International Environmental Legal Norms to Cyber Statecraft, 8 J. L. & POL'Y INFO. SOC'Y 361 (2012).
70
Steve Hedley, Nations, Markets and Other Imaginary Places: Who Makes the Law in Cyberspace?, 12 INFO. & COMM. TECH. L. 215 (2003). Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 267 (2006). Katherine L. Holey, Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc.: Internet Based Minimum Contacts, 34 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 219 (2009). Ryan T. Holte, What Is Really Fair: Internet Sales and the Georgia Long‐Arm Statute, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. &
TECH. 567 (2009). Kirk D. Homeyer, Can a State Seize an Internet Gambling Website's Domain Name? An Analysis of the Kentucky Case, 2 U.N.L.V. GAMING L.J. 107 (2011). Anne Sikes Hornsby, Internet Transactions and Communications: Expanding or Contracting Traditional Notions of Personal Jurisdiction, 70 ALA. LAW. 379 (2009). Derek J. Illar, Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web, 88 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 1 (2010). Allison Marie Isaak, Picking Fights in Missouri: Baldwin's Non‐Rule Embraces the Minority Approach to Internet Libel Jurisdiction, 76 MO. L. REV. 1265 (2011). Scott T. Jansen, Oh, What a Tangled Web . . . The Continuing Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction Derived From Internet‐Based Contacts, 71 MO. L. REV. 177 (2006). Andre R. Jaglom, Liability on‐Line: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction on the Internet, or Who's in Charge Here?, 16 INT'L L. PRACTICUM 66 (2003). Sarabdeen Jawahitha, Cyberjurisdiction and Consumer Protection in E‐Commerce, 21 COMPUTER L. &
SECURITY REP. 153 (2005). Lora M. Jennings, Finding Legal Certainty for E‐Commerce: Traditional Personal Jurisdiction Analysis and the Scope of the Zippo Sliding Scale, 44 WASHBURN L.J. 381 (2005). Jeffrey M. Jensen, Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over International E‐Commerce Cases, 40 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1507 (2007). Kyle D. Johnson, Measuring Minimum Contacts Over the Internet: How Courts Analyze Internet Communications to Acquire Personal Jurisdiction Over the Out‐of‐State Person, 46 U. LOUISVILLE L. REV. 313 (2007). Natalie Joubert, Cyber‐Torts and Personal Jurisdiction: The Paris Court of Appeal Makes a Stand, 58 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 476 (2009). Sean Kanuck, Sovereign Discourse on Cyber Conflict Under International Law, 88 TEX. L. REV. 1571 (2010).
71
Panagiota Kelali, Provisional Relief in Transnational Litigation in the Internet Era: What is in the US Best Interest?, 24 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 263 (2006). Moritz Keller, Lessons for the Hague: Internet Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort Cases in the European Community and the United States, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 1 (2004). Mark S. Kende, The Issues of E‐Mail Privacy and Cyberspace Personal Jurisdiction: What Clients Need to Know About Two Practical Constitutional Questions Regarding the Internet, 63 MONT. L. REV. 301 (2002). Mark F. Kightlinger, A Solution to the Yahoo! Problem? The EC E‐Commerce Directive as a Model for International Cooperation on Internet Choice of Law, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 719 (2003). Hon. Daniel J. Kiley, Minimum E‐Contacts: Personal Jurisdiction in the Internet Age, 47‐NOV ARIZ. ATT'Y 58 (2010). Kevin F. King, Geolocation and Federalism on the Internet: Cutting Internet Gambling’s Gordian Knot, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 41 (2010). Kevin F. King, Personal Jurisdiction, Internet Commerce, and Privacy, 21 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 61 (2011). Uta Kohl, Eggs, Jurisdiction, and the Internet, 51 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 555 (2002). Uta Kohl, The Rule Of Law, Jurisdiction And The Internet, 12 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 365 (2004). Uta Kohl, Who has the Right to Govern Online Activity? A Criminal and Civil Point of View, 18 INT’L REV. L. COMPUTERS & TECH. 387 (2004). Jeffrey D. Kramer, Seafaring Data Havens: Google's Patented Pirate Ship, 2010 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 359 (2010). Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 339 (2005). Annette Kur, Applicable Law: An Alternative Proposal for International Regulation‐‐The Max‐Planck Project on International Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 30 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 951 (2005). Megan M. La Belle, The Future of Internet‐Related Personal Jurisdiction After Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. Mcintyre v. Nicastro, 15 NO. 7 J. INTERNET L. 3 (2012). Megan M. La Belle, "Virtual" Contacts and Patent Cases: How Should Internet‐Related Activity in Patent Cases Affect the Personal Jurisdiction Analysis?, 13 NO. 12 J. INTERNET L. 25 (2010). Emily B. Laidlaw, Private Power, Public Interest: An Examination of Search Engine Accountability, 17 INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 113 (2009). Thomas A. Lane, Of Hammers and Saws: The Toolbox of Federalism and Sources of Law for the Web, 33 N. MEX. L. REV. 115 (2003).
72
Daniel Arthur Laprès, Of Yahoos and Dilemmas, 3 CHI. J. INT'L L. 409 (2002). Felicia M. Lee, Civil Procedure‐Roblor Marketing Group, Inc v. Gps Industries: Should the Sliding Scale Analysis of Interactivity Be Used to Assess Personal Jurisdiction over Companies or Individuals Operating Websites?, 33 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 425 (2009). Mark A. Lemley, Place and Cyberspace, 91 CAL. L. REV. 521 (2003). Susanna H. Leong & Cheng Lim Saw, Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World‐‐Does Territoriality Matter?, 15 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 38 (2007). Timothy P. Lester, Globalized Automatic Choice of Forum: Where Do Internet Consumers Sue?: Proposed Article 7 of the Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and its Possible Effects on e‐Commerce, 9 NEW ENG. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 431 (2003). Michael W. Loudenslager, Allowing Another Policeman on the Information Superhighway: State Interests and Federalism on the Internet in the Face of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 BYU J. PUB. L. 191 (2003). Michelle Love, International Jurisdiction over the Internet: A Case Analysis of Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, 17 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 261 (2003). Todd A. Lubben, The Federal Government and Regulation of Internet Sports Gambling, 10 SPORTS LAW. J. 317 (2003). Nathaniel Lucek, From Lumber to Local Area Network: The Impact of Vermont Wholesale on Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 48 N.H. B.J. 24 (2007). Sarah H. Ludington, Aiming at the Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 541 (2012). Mark MacCarthy, What Payment Intermediaries Are Doing About Online Liability and Why It Matters, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1037 (2010). Allison MacDonald, YouTubing Down the Stream of Commerce: Eliminating the Express Aiming Requirement for Personal Jurisdiction in User‐Generated Internet Content Cases, 19 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 519 (2009). Todd V. Mackey, Limiting Exposure for Internet Vendors: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 21 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 207 (2003). Catherine L. Mann, Balancing Issues and Overlapping Jurisdictions in the Global Electronic Marketplace: The UCITA Example, 8 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 215 (2002). Mitchell J. Matorin, Website Interactivity As A Basis for Personal Jurisdiction, 55‐SPG B. B.J. 26 (2011).
73
Andreas Manolopoulos, Raising ‘Cyber‐Borders’: The Interaction Between Law and Technology, 11 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 40 (2003). Samuel O. Manteaw, Entering the Digital Marketplace: E‐Commerce and Jurisdiction in Ghana, 16 TRANSNAT'L LAW. 345 (2003). Peter D. Marketos & Jennifer Butler Wells, Personal Jurisdiction Through the Internet in Texas, 41 THE ADVOC. (TEXAS) 57 (2007). Jenny S. Martinez, Towards an International Judicial System, 56 STAN. L. REV. 429 (2003). Shekei Masoud, The Offshore Quandry: The Impact of Domestic Regulation on Licensed Offshore Gambling Companies, 25 WHITTIER L. REV. 989 (2004). Andrea M. Matwyshyn, Of Nodes and Power Laws: A Network Theory Approach to Internet Jurisdiction Through Data Privacy, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 493 (2004). Ulf Maunsbach, Some Reflections Concerning Jurisdiction in Cases on Cross‐Border Trademark Infringements Through the Internet, 47 SCANDINAVIAN STUDS. L. 493 (2004). W. Dudley McCarter & Joseph C. Blanner, Personal Jurisdiction: Has the Internet Changed Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice?, 60 J. MO. B. 296 (2004). Robert L. McFarland, Please Do Not Publish This Article in England: A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, 79 MISS. L.J. 617 (2010). Kevin A. Meehan, The Continuing Conundrum of International Internet Jurisdiction, 31 B.C. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 345 (2008). Pavan Mehrotra, Back to the Basics: Why Traditional Principles of Personal Jurisdiction Are Effective Today and Why Zippo Needs to Go, 12 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 229 (2010). Roni G. Melamed, Exercising Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident Cyberstalkers, 37‐AUG COLO. LAW. 75 (2008). Jack Mellyn, “Reach Out and Touch Someone”: The Growing Use of Domain Name Seizure as a Vehicle for Extraterritorial Enforcement of U.S. Law, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1241 (2011). Jeffrey P. Miller, Jurisdictional Issues in Internet Litigation, L.A. Law., 31‐SEP L.A. LAW. 24 (2008). Samuel F. Miller, Prescriptive Jurisdiction over Internet Activity: The Need to Define and Establish the Boundaries of Cyberliberty, 10 IND. J. GLOBAL LEGAL STUD. 227 (2003). Jeffrey Hunter Moon, New Wine, Old Wineskins: Emerging Issues in Internet‐Based Personal Jurisdiction, 42 CATH. LAW. 67 (2002).
74
Kimberly A. Moore and Francesco Parisi, Symposium on Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts: Rethinking Forum Shopping in Cyberspace, 77 CHI.‐KENT L. REV. 1325 (2002). Todd W. Moore, Untying Our Hands: The Case for Uniform Personal Jurisdiction over “Libel Tourism”, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 3207 (2009). Kristine M. Moriarty, Law Practice and the Internet: The Ethical Implications That Arise from Multijurisdictional Online Legal Service, 39 IDAHO L. REV. 431 (2003). Nikhil Moro, Proposal for A Model Law to Prosecute Internet Libel, 16 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012). Shane Padgett Morris, COMMENTARY: Interstate Commerce and the Future of State Sales and Use Taxes, 54 ALA. L. REV. 1393 (2003). Shane P. Morris, Pirates of the Internet, At Intellectual Property’s End With Torrents and Challenges for Choice of Law, 17 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 282 (2009). Paul J. Morrow, J.D. Esq., Cyberlaw: The Unconscionability / Unenforceability of Contracts (Shrink‐Wrap, Clickwrap, and Browse‐Wrap) on the Internet: A Multijurisdictional Analysis Showing the Need for Oversight, 11 U. Pitt. J. Tech. L. Pol'y 7 (2011). Caitlin T. Murphy, International Law and the Internet: An Ill‐Suited Match, 25 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 405 (2002). Vineeth Narayaran, Harnessing the Cloud: International Law Implications of Cloud‐Computing, 12 CHI. J. INT'L L. 783 (2012). Dorian Needham, Beyond Geography: Nuisance in Virtual Communities, 42 OTTAWA L. REV. 189 (2011). Carina Neumueller, Are We “There” Yet? An Analysis of Canadian and European Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Principles in the Context of Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection and Policy Issues, 3 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 421 (2006). Quinn K. Nemeyer, Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: Applying the Traditional Concepts of General Jurisdiction to Internet Contacts, 52 LOY. L. REV. 147 (2006). Kendrick D. Nguyen, Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness, 83 B.U.L. REV. 253 (2003). TiTi Nguyen, A Survey of Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activity: A Return to Tradition, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 519 (2004). Erin F. Norris, Why the Internet Isn’t Special: Restoring Predictability to Personal Jurisdiction, 53 ARIZ. L. REV. 1013 (2011). Note, A “Category‐Specific” Legislative Approach to the Internet Personal Jurisdiction Problem in U.S. Law, 117 HARV. L. REV. 1617 (2004).
75
Note, Civil Procedure‐Personal Jurisdiction‐Ninth Circuit Holds That Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Company Whose Website Cultivates Significant Forum State User Base Comports with Due Process.‐Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 125 HARV. L. REV. 634 (2011). Note, Developments in the Law: The Law of Media: V. Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1031 (2007). Note, No Bad Puns: A Different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1821 (2003). Erin Ann O’Hara, Choice of Law for Internet Transactions: The Uneasy Case for Online Consumer Protection, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1883 (2005). Elissa A. Okoniewski, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet, 18 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 295 (2002). Nathan A. Olin, The A‐B‐Cs of Targeting: A Formula for Resolving Personal Jurisdiction‐Internet Issues Within the District of Massachusetts, 23 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 237 (2002). Joakim ST Øren, International Jurisdiction Over Consumer Contracts in e‐Europe, 52 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 665 (2003). Michelle R. Osinski, Personal Jurisdiction and Internet Torts: Michigan District Courts Require “Something More” than Simply Registering Someone Else’s Trademark as a Domain Name and Posting a Web Page on the Internet to Subject a Defendant to Personal Jurisdiction, 80 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 249 (2003). Mario J.A. Oyarzábal, Jurisdiction over International Electronic Contracts: A View on Inter‐American, Mercosur, and Argentine Rules, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 87 (2005). Christopher William Pappas, Comparative U.S. & EU Approaches to E‐Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation, 31 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 325 (2002). Matthew L. Perdoni, Revising the Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction to Accommodate Internet‐Based Personal Contacts, 14 U. D.C. L. REV. 159 (2011). Wendy Perdue, Aliens, the Internet, and "Purposeful Availment": A Reassessment of Fifth Amendment Limits on Personal Jurisdiction, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 455 (2004). James R. Pielemeier, Choice of Law for Multistate Defamation‐The State of Affairs as Internet Defamation Beckons, 35 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 55 (2003). James R. Pielemeier, Why General Personal Jurisdiction over "Virtual Stores" Is A Bad Idea, 27 QUINNIPIAC
L. REV. 625 (2009). Lucille M. Ponte, Boosting Consumer Confidence in E‐Business: Recommendations for Establishing Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution Programs for B2C Online Transactions, 12 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 441 (2002).
76
Christopher M. Porterfield, Which Stream to Follow: Why the Eleventh Circuit Should Adopt a Broader Stream of Commerce Theory in Light of Growing E‐Commerce Markets, 20 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 539 (2003). David G. Post, Against “Against Cyberanarchy”, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1365 (2002). Alexander B. Punger, Mapping the World Wide Web: Using Calder v. Jones to Create a Framework for Analyzing when Statements Written on the Internet Give Rise to Personal Jurisdiction, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1952 (2009). Tapio Puurunen, The Judicial Jurisdiction of States Over International Business‐to‐Consumer Commerce from the Perspective of Legal Certainty, 8 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 133 (2002). Robert T. Razzano, Error 404 Jurisdiction Not Found: The Ninth Circuit Frustrates the Efforts of Yahoo! Inc. to Declare a Speech‐restrictive Foreign Judgment Unenforceable, 73 U. CIN. L. REV. 1743 (2005). Norbert Reich, Transnational Consumer Law‐‐Reality or Fiction?, 27 PENN ST. INT’L L. REV. 859 (2009). Amanda Reid, Operationalizing the Law of Jurisdiction: Where in the World Can I Be Sued for Operating a World Wide Web Page?, 8 COMM. L. & POL’Y 227 (2003). Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003). Joel R. Reidenberg, Technology and Internet Jurisdiction, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1951 (2005). Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo! and Democracy on the Internet, 42 JURIMETRICS J. 261 (2002). Mathias Reimann, Introduction: The Yahoo! Case and Conflict of Laws in the Cyberage, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 663 (2003). Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, The Internet and the Law: Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction over the World‐Wide Web, 52 THE ADVOCATE 53 (2010). Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, The Predictability Principle in Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine: A Case Study on the Effects of a "Generally" Too Broad, but "Specifically" Too Narrow Approach to Minimum Contacts, 57 BAYLOR L. REV. 135 (2005). Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Nineteenth Century Personal Jurisdiction in a Twenty‐First Century World, 64 FLA. L. REV. 387 (2012). Larry A. Ribstein & Bruce H. Kobayashi, State Regulation of Electronic Commerce, 51 EMORY L.J. 1 (2002). Dennis T. Rice & Julia Gladstone, An Assessment of the Effects Test in Determining Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 58 BUS. LAWYER 601 (2003). Megan Richardson & Richard Garnett, Perils of Publishing on the Internet: Broader Implications of Dow Jones v. Gutnick, 13 GRIFFITH L. REV. 74 (2004).
77
Cassandra Burke Robertson, The Inextricable Merits Problem in Personal Jurisdiction, 45 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1301 (2012). David Rolph, Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet After Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick., 33 U.N.S.W.L.J. 562 (2010). Neil M. Rosenbaum, Pick A Court, Any Court: Forum Shopping Defamation Claims in the Internet Age, 14 No. 12 J. INTERNET L. 18 (2011). Michael L. Rustad, Circles of E‐Consumer Trust: Old E‐America v. New E‐Europe, 16 MICH. ST. J. INT'L L. 183 (2007). Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Cybertorts and Legal Lag: An Empirical Analysis, 13 S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J. 77 (2003). Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America, 5 J. HIGH TECH. L. 13 (2005). Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Harmonizing Internet Law: Lessons from Europe, 9 NO. 11 J. INTERNET L. 3 (2006). Michael L. Rustad & Diane D’Angelo, The Path of Internet Law: An Annotated Guide to Legal Landmarks, 2011 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 12 (2011). Carlos J. R. Salvado, An Effective Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine for the Internet, 12 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 75 (2003). Lisa Savitt & Amelia Schmidt, The Perils of Going Global: Personal Jurisdiction May Exist for Foreign Companies in Us Courts, 3 NO. 2 DISP. RESOL. INT'L 134 (2009). Stephen Saxby, Personal Jurisdiction Ruling in P2P Network Music Copyright Dispute, 22 COMPUTER L. &
SECURITY REPORT 350 (2006). Teresa Scassa and Robert J. Currie, New First Principles: Assessing the Internet’s Challenges to Jurisdiction, 42 GEO. J. INT'L L. 1017 (2011). David Schaffer, Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co.: A Maryland Court Cannot Exercise Personal Jurisdiction over an Out‐of‐State Defendant Based Solely on the Existence of Defendant’s Internet Website or Link, 36 U. BALT. L.F. 57 (2005). John J. Schulze, Caveat E‐Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006). Thomas Schultz, Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface, 19 EUR. J. INT'L L. 799 (2008). Suzanna Sherry, Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace, 55 VAND. L. REV. 309 (2002).
78
Natalya Shmulevich, A Minimum Contacts and Fairness Examination of Personal Jurisdiction over Providers of Free Downloads on the Internet, 13‐SUM MEDIA L. & POL'Y 55 (2004). Linda Sandstrom Simard, Meeting Expectations: Two Profiles for Specific Jurisdiction, 38 IND. L. REV. 343 (2005). Gavin R. Skene, The Extraterritorial Operation of Australian E‐Commerce Litigation, 13 TUL. J. INT'L &
COMP. L. 219 (2005). Andrea Slane, Tales, Tech, and Territories: Private International Law, Globalization, and the Legal Construction of Borderlessness on the Internet, 71‐SUM LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 129 (2008). Jamie Spataro, Personal Jurisdiction Over The Internet: How International Is Today's Shoe, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 2 (2002). A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network‐Mediated Contacts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 71 (2006). A. Benjamin Spencer, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, 73 U. CHI. L. REV. 617 (2006). * Gary D. Sprague & Rachel Hersey, Permanent Establishments and Internet‐Enabled Enterprises: The Physical Presence and Contract Concluding Dependent Agent Tests, 38 GA. L. REV. 299 (2003). William M. Stahl, The Uncharted Waters of Cyberspace: Applying the Principles of International Maritime Law to the Problem of Cybersecurity, 40 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 247 (2011). Mark D. Standridge, Passive Voice: The Unclear Standards for Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in New Mexico via the World Wide Web, 35 N.M. L. REV. 679 (2005). Allan R. Stein, Parochialism and Pluralism in Cyberspace Regulation, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 2003 (2005). Allan R. Stein, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Seeing Due Process Through the Lens of Regulatory Precision, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 411 (2004). Michael K. Steinberger, Note, Internet Solutions v. Marshall: The Overreach of Florida's Long‐Arm, 66 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1089 (2012). Milena Sterio, Clash of the Titans: Collisions of Economic Regulations and the Need to Harmonize Prescriptive Jurisdiction Rules, 13 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 95 (2007). Daniel Steuer, The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 319 (2003). Gena M. Stinnett, Ignorance Is Bliss: A Comment on Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1733 (2003).
79
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, An Introduction to Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace, 15 J.L. & INFO. SCI. 50 (2004).
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Borders On, or Borders Around the Future of the Internet, 16 ALB. L.J. SCI. &
TECH. 343 (2006). Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Conflict of Law Issues Associated With an Action for Interference with Privacy, 23 COMPUTER L. & SEC. REP. 523 (2007). Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Geolocation Technologies and Other Means of Placing Borders on the ‘Borderless’ Internet, 23 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 101 (2004). Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, “Imagine There’s No Countries”: Geo‐Identification, the Law, and the Not‐so‐Borderless Internet, 10 NO. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2007). Dan Svantesson, The ‘Place of Action’ Defence, 2003 AUSTRALIAN INT’L L.J. 172 (2003). Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, The Choice of Courts Convention: How Will it Work in Relation to Internet and E‐Commerce?, 5 J. PRIV. INT’L L. 517 (2009). Steven R. Swanson, Google Sets Sail: Ocean‐Base Server Farms and International Law, 43 CONN. L. REV. 709 (2011). Peter P. Swire, Elephants and Mice Revisited: Law and Choice of Law on the Internet, 153 U. PENN. L. REV. 1975 (2005). Oscar Franklin B. Tan, The International Shoe Still Fits the Virtual Foot: A Due Process Framework for Philippine Internet Personal Jurisdiction Problems, 2005 PHILIPPINE L.J. 1028 (2005). Ty Tasker & Daryn Pakcyk, Article: Cyber‐Surfing on the High Seas of Legalese: Law and Technology of Internet Agreements, 18 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 79 (2008). Yasmin R. Tavakoli, David R. Yohannan, Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Where Does It Begin, and Where Does It End?, 23 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J. 3 (2011). Louise Ellen Teitz, Both Sides of the Coin: A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation, 10 ROGER WILLIAMS U. L. REV. 1 (2004). Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Content Controversies: A Comparative Analysis, 20 CONN. J. INT’L L. 199 (2005). Rosemary Tobin & Paul Myburgh, Horse and Buggy on the Electronic Highway: Transnational Internet Defamation in the High Court of Australia, 9 N.Z. BUS. L.Q. 151 (2003). Alan Toy, Cross‐Border and Extraterritorial Application of New Zealand Data Protection Laws to Online Activity, 24 N.Z. UNIS. L. REV. 222 (2010).
80
Marketa Trimble, Setting Foot on Enemy Ground: Cease‐and‐Desist Letters, Dmca Notifications and Personal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions, 50 IDEA 777 (2010). Marketa Trimble, The Future of Cybertravel: Legal Implications of the Evasion of Geolocation, 22 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 567 (2012). David C. Tunick, Passive Internet Websites and Personal Jurisdiction, 28 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 739 (2003). Robert Uerpmann‐Wittzack, Principles of International Internet Law, 11 GERMAN L.J. 1245 (2010). Gregor Urbas, Cybercrime, Jurisdiction and Extradition: The Extended Reach of Cross‐Border Law Enforcement, 16 NO. 1 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2012). Jeffrey A. Van Detta & Shiv K. Kapoor, Extraterritorial Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty‐First Century: A Case Study Reconceptualizing the Typical Long‐Arm Statute to Codify and Refine International Shoe After its First Sixty Years, 3 SETON HALL CIRCUIT REV. 339 (2007). Molly S. Van Houweling, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, the First Amendment, and Internet Speech: Notes for the Next Yahoo! v. LICRA, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 697 (2003). Peter S. Vogel, Internet Jurisdiction Makes Life Interesting, 73 TEX. B.J. 208 (2010). Ng Hon Wah, Hong Kong Courts’ Jurisdiction to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights Infringed by Internet Contents, 35 HONG KONG L. J. 367 (2005). Jay Wahlquist, The World Summit on the Information Society: Making the Case for Private Industry Filtering to Control Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Transnational Internet Censorship Conflicts, 1 INT'L L. & MGMT. REV. 283 (2005). Daniel E. Wanat, Copyright Infringement Litigation and the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Within Due Process Limits: Judicial Application of Purposeful Availment, Purposeful Direction, or Purposeful Effects Requirements to Finding That a Plaintiff Has Established A Defendant's Minimum Contacts Within A Forum State, 59 MERCER L. REV. 553 (2008). Tracie E. Wandell, Geolocation and Jurisdiction: From Purposeful Availment to Avoidance and Targeting on the Internet, 16 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 275 (2011). Robert Ware III, The Use of Jurisdictional Arbitrage to Support the Strategic Interest of the Firm, 38 U. TOL. L. REV. 307 (2006). Aaron Warshaw, Rome II and the Choice of Law for Defamation Claims, 32 BROOKLYN J. INT’L L. 269 (2006). Horatia Muir Watt, Yahoo! Cyber‐Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates?, 24 MICH. J. INT’L L. 673 (2003). Amalie M. Weber, The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 425 (2003). Joel Weinberg, Everyone's A Winner: Regulating, Not Prohibiting, Internet Gambling, 35 SW. U. L. REV. 293 (2006).
81
Bryan P. Werley, Aussie Rules: Universal Jurisdiction over Internet Defamation, 18 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 199 (2004). Kristin Woeste, General Jurisdiction and the Internet: Sliding Too Far?, 73 U. CINCINNATI L. REV. 793 (2004). Gregory J. Wrenn, Cyberspace is Real, National Borders are Fiction: The Protection of Expressive Rights Online Through Recognition of National Borders in Cyberspace, 38 STAN. J. INT’L L. 97 (2002). Michelle A. Wyant, Confronting the Limits of the First Amendment: A Proactive Approach for Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, 9 San Diego Int'l L.J. 367 (2008). Raquel Xalabarder, Copyright: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction in the Digital Age, 8 ANN. SURV. INT'L &
COMP. L. 79 (2002). Rhoda J. Yen, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Applying Old Principles to A "New" Medium, 76‐MAR FLA. B.J. 41 (2002). Gary Chan Kok Yew, Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, 2003 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 483 (2003). Dennis T. Yokoyama, You Can’t Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147 (2005). Georgios I. Zekos, Cyber‐Territory and Jurisdiction of Nations, 15 NO. 12 J. INTERNET L. 3 (2012). Georgios I. Zekos, State and Personal Jurisdiction: State Cyberspace Jurisdiction and Personal Cyberspace
Jurisdiction, 15 INT’L J. L. & TECH. 1 (2007).
82
TABLEOFCASES
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002). Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000). Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D.Pa. 1999). Be2LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011). Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007). Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002). Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, Inc., 999 F.Supp. 636 (E.D.Pa.1998). Bombliss v. Cornelsen, 824 N.E.2d 1175 (2005). Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2008). Brainerd v. Governors of Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1989). Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985). Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003). Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011). CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996). Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010). Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997). Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1991). ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC, 34 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.S.C. 1999). Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U. S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011).
83
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 611 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2010). Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2003). Lindgren v. GDT, 312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004). MacNeil v. Trambert, 932 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). Mavrix v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011). Millennium Enter. v. Millennium Music, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999). Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999). Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002). Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006). Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002). Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004). Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011). Sportschannel New England Ltd. P'ship v. Fancaster, Inc., 2010 WL 3895177 (D.Mass. 2010). Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010). Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003). Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed.Cir. 2005). Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006). Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002). Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997).