Minimum Internet Contacts:Personal Jurisdiction And The World Wide Web

Introduction

Is a company that operates a website on the Internet subject to personal jurisdiction in every forum in which Internet users access the site? Imagine, for example, that an Illinois company based in Chicago advertises its widget product line over the World Wide Web, and is later sued for trademark infringement based on the logo for its widget products. Does this company thereby subject itself to personal jurisdiction in Alaska, because it so happens that Internet users in Anchorage accessed the company's website displaying the logo? What if this same company does not advertise its widget products over the Internet, but instead allows for the sale of its widgets via a hyperlink from a thirdparty website? Does this company now subject itself to personal jurisdiction in Montana for a patent infringement dispute because someone in Billings purchased a single widget through the hyperlink? Surprisingly, these Internet contacts alone may suffice to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and companies that maintain websites or otherwise market themselves via the Internet must be aware of these jurisdictional ramifications.

Traditional Notions Of Personal Jurisdiction

Before turning to Internet-specific jurisprudence, it is necessary to briefly review certain basic principles of personal jurisdiction. Determining whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant entails two inquiries: (1) whether the forum state's long-arm statute permits service of process; and (2) whether the assertion of jurisdiction comports with due process. See, e.g., LGF, LLC v. Zapata Corp., 78 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (N.D. Ill. 1999). However, as in most states, the Illinois long-arm statute permits Illinois courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant on any basis allowed under the due process clauses of either the United States or Illinois Constitutions. Because of this, the jurisdictional analysis collapses into a single due process inquiry.

For an exercise of personal jurisdiction to satisfy due process, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." This determination depends on whether the plaintiff asserts general or specific jurisdiction against the defendant. General jurisdiction arises when a defendant maintains continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, even though the cause of action may not have any relation to those contacts. Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, arises where the cause of action relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum state, regardless of whether those contacts are isolated and sporadic. With both general and specific jurisdiction, a defendant must "reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state" by "purposely avail[ing] itself of the privilege of conducting activities there." As will be demonstrated below, the operation of websites and other Internet-related activities elicits consequences for the exercise of both general and specific jurisdiction.

The "Sliding Scale" Approach To Internet Personal Jurisdiction

Simply registering a domain name for a website is not sufficient to create jurisdiction without something else. This "something else" is precisely what courts are grappling with. What level of interaction with an Internet website is required to rise to the level of "minimum contacts" such...