Personal ability in the digital age

The concept of “existence” for judicial purposes has evolved with the widespread use of websites, social media and other digital platforms. An organization or individual may not have health on the forum, however these digital platforms may be subject to personal jurisdiction as a result of their activities.

Importantly, the public jurisdiction does not require the maintenance of the defendant and the use of the “interactive” website. So, “[t]The contact level of the non-resident responders site provides limited assistance in answering the obvious question of whether the respondent’s forum contacts are substantial, conclusive and reasonable enough to justify. Public jurisdiction“. Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. , 647 F. 3d 1218, 1227 (9^And Mr. 2011); Fidrych v. Marriott Inter’l, Inc. See also., 952 F. 3d 124, 141-42 (4^And Mr. 2020). In fact, the ‘sliding scale’ test of interactive websites was first proven Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zipper Dot Com, Inc. In the context of 952 sub F. 1119 (WD Pa. 1997) Specific jurisdiction Question. Identity Card. 1122 hours.

On the other hand, a specific jurisdiction is found based on some or all of the following functions:

• Use words or phrases on a website designed to attract specific forum customers (Ayla, LLC Degen Alia Skin Pry. Ltd. 11 F.4e (9^And Mr. 2021));
• Use Google Adwords designed to attract customers from a specific forum (College Source, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. , 653 F.3d 1066 (9^And Mr. 2011));
• Sell ​​website space to third-party advertisers who use forum-based words or phrases to attract customers (Marvix Photo v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9^And Mr. 2011));
• Site maintenance related to the status of the forum (Marvix photos, above); In
• Link a non-resident site to the forum site (Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. , 68 calorie activation. V280 (2021)).

Two recent cases – both of which were decided in August this year – illustrate some of these policies.

A Ayla, LLC vs. Alia Skin Pry. Ltd. 11F4^And 972 (9^And Mr. In 2021, the court heard a lawsuit filed by an American company (Aila) against an Australian competitor (Alya Skin) for trademark infringement, misrepresentation of appearance and unfair competition. Alia Skin was not physically present in California, but had a wide presence on many digital platforms. However, the court rejected Alya Skin’s request and Aila appealed.

The ninth round was returned and recovered. In finding support for the exercise of a specific jurisdiction over Alya Skin, the Court has largely focused on the Alya Skin digital business.

The court ruled that Alia Skin’s digital marketing campaign, which targeted U.S. customers, justified personal jurisdiction, despite the lack of physical condition in California. In this regard, the court noted that Alya Skin included an advertising message on her website: “Attention USA Babes We now accept post payment.” The court noted that the release was “an open and intentional request to American consumers, not to others.” Identity Card. At 980. See also CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. Above, 653 F. at 3d 1080 (9^And Mr. 2011) (California’s use of Google Adwords was in favor of enforcing “meaningful injection” and personal jurisdiction).

The court also ruled that Alya Skin’s advertisement for ‘black silver’ sales was significant. In other words, Sell ​​the next day for the special American Thanksgiving holiday. While Alya Skin has provided evidence that black silver is “spreading fast in Australia”, the court noted that black silver appeared in the United States as “America’s biggest shopping day”. The court ruled that[t]In addition to other Allia skin ads targeting Americans, the company’s Black Friday ads provide additional support for the conclusion that Allia Skin marketing is aimed at the United States. Identity Card. At 980.

Finally, the court noted that Alya Skin uses social media sites to sell her products. It points out that some of its sales to the United States may be through third-party websites such as Facebook and Instagram, and that this particular jurisdiction is supported because Alya Skin operates those social media accounts. Identity Card. At 981.

There was a similar focus on digital presence Swinberg vs. Demarsian, 68 Gal. Application, 5^And 280 (2021) There, the plaintiff (Swenberg) was a minority partner in a (dmarcian) company in California. He sued Grunweck, a majority partner and non-citizen defendant who was a citizen and citizen of the Netherlands. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Demarsian U, a European subsidiary of Demarsian, was given a liability for interest.

When he was separated due to lack of personal jurisdiction, Kronevek said he was a Dutch citizen and had lived in the Netherlands all his life. He also said he does not own or do business in California, does not do business or personally in California, and has no property in California. Based on these arguments, the lower court upheld Kronevek’s request for no jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal quashed.

Judging that Groeneweg’s personal jurisdiction could be properly exercised, Groeneweg formally identified dmarcian’s California Groeneweg as one of its leaders, even though it was formally affiliated with the dmarcian EU – a European company affiliated with dmarcian – California. It is owned by another company. The court found that since dmarcian and dmarcianEU shared a website, “anyone who attempts to access the dmarcian EU website will be redirected to the dmarcian website”. Identity Card. At 479. Thus, “dmarcian Online Presence in the EU is a generic website operated by a dmarcian in California where a dmarcian employee assigns potential customers to the dmarcian EU.” Identity Card. At 480. The court ruled that Groeneweg had “deliberately” exploited the benefits of running a business in California, these digital connections between Groeneweg and the California-based dmarcian.

This article was originally published GGI Insider will be released in November 2021. Reprinted with permission.