Jurisdiction and the Internet

II. Issues and Short Answers

Short Answer: New York courts have approached jurisdictional issues involving the Internet through application of the New York Long-Arm Statute, which does not extend jurisdiction to the constitutionally permissible maximum. The long-arm statute allows the state to reach defendants who: (1) transact business in the state; (2) commit a tort in the state; (3) commit a tort outside the state causing injury within the state when substantial revenue is gained from the intrastate or interstate commerce; or (4) own property within the state.

2. Issue: How have federal courts addressed challenges to personal jurisdiction in which personal jurisdiction is based, in whole or in part, on Internet contacts?

Short Answer: Federal courts have approached jurisdictional issues involving the Internet through application of traditional jurisdictional tests that seek to evaluate the extent and intensity of a defendant's contacts with the potential forum state and the relationship between the nature of the contacts and the cause of action at bar.

3. Issue: How do federal courts analyze Internet contacts when ruling on jurisdictional issues?

Short Answer: Federal courts generally evaluate Internet contacts using a sliding-scale approach. Courts characterize contacts by their level of activity, with active websites providing for jurisdiction, passive websites generally not providing for jurisdiction and semi-active websites requiring consideration of additional factors. For semi-active websites, courts evaluate the nature and relationship of the information exchanged in addition to any traditional contacts.

Some circuit courts have explicitly adopted the sliding-scale and other have implicitly endorsed it. Many district courts have also adopted the approach.

4. Issue: Have Federal Courts utilized any other approaches to address challenges to personal jurisdiction in which personal jurisdiction is based, in whole or in part, on Internet contacts?

Short Answer: In certain circumstances involving intentional torts, some federal courts have applied an effects-based test, giving great weight to the defendant's actual or constructive knowledge that the effects of tortious conduct would occur in a specific place.