The concept of “presence” for jurisdictional purposes has evolved with the widespread use of websites, social media and other digital platforms. A company or individual may have no physical presence in a forum, but may nevertheless be subject to personal jurisdiction there as a consequence of its activities on these digital platforms.
Importantly, general jurisdiction does not necessarily follow from the defendant’s maintenance and use of an “interactive” website. Thus, “[t]he level of interactivity of a nonresident defendant’s website provides limited help in answering the distinct question whether the defendant’s forum contacts are sufficiently substantial, continuous, and systematic to justify general jurisdiction”. Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F. 3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Fidrych v. Marriott Inter’l, Inc., 952 F. 3d 124, 141-42 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, the “sliding scale” test for interactive websites that was first articulated in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zipper Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W. D. Pa. 1997) was formulated in the context of a specific jurisdiction inquiry. Id. at 1122.
On the other hand, specific jurisdiction has been found based on some or all of the following activities:
- The use of words or phrases on a website that are designed to attract forum-specific customers (Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th (9th Cir. 2021));
- The use of Google Adwords that are designed to attract forum-specific customers (CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011));
- Selling space on a website to third-party advertisers who use forum-specific words or phrases to attract customers (Marvix Photo v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011));
- Maintenance of a website whose subject matter is connected with the forum state (Marvix Photo, supra); and
- The linking of a non-resident’s website with a forum-based website (Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 5th 280 (2021)).
Two recent cases – both of which were decided in August of this year – illustrate some of these principles.
In Ayla, LLC vs. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F. 4th 972 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court addressed an action by an American company (Ayla) against an Australian competitor (Alya Skin) involving claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition. Alya Skin had no physical presence in California, but it did have an extensive presence on a number of digital platforms. Nevertheless, the District Court granted Alya Skin’s motion to dismiss and Ayla appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. In finding that the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Alya Skin was supported, the Court focused largely on Alya Skin’s digital activities.
The Court found that notwithstanding its lack of physical presence in California, Alya Skin’s digital marketing campaign that was especially focused on US customers justified the exercise of personal jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court noted that on its website Alya Skin had the promotional post, “ATTENTION USA BABES WE NOW ACCEPT afterpay”. The Court noted that the post was “an intentional, explicit appeal to American consumers and no others”. Id. at 980. See also CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., supra, 653 F. 3d at 1080 (9th Cir. 2011) (use of California-specific Google AdWords constituted “purposeful injection” and supported the exercise of personal jurisdiction).
The Court also found to be significant Alya Skin’s website’s advertising for “Black Friday” sales – i.e., sales on the day after the U.S.’s distinctive Thanksgiving holiday. Although Alya Skin presented evidence that Black Friday is “slowing catching on in Australia”, the Court noted that Black Friday originated in the U.S. and remains “America’s biggest shopping day”. The Court held that “[t]aken together with Alya Skin’s other advertising aimed at Americans, the company’s Black Friday advertising provides further support for the conclusion that Alya Skin’s marketing targeted the United States”. Id. at 980.
Finally, the Court noted Alya Skin’s use of social media platforms to sell its products. It observed that some of its sales to the United States may have occurred through third party websites such as Facebook and Instagram and that specific jurisdiction was supported because Alya Skin operated those social media accounts. Id. at 981.
There was a similar focus on digital presence in Swenberg vs. Dmarcian, 68 Cal. App, 5th 280 (2021). There the plaintiff (Swenberg) was a minority shareholder of a company (dmarcian) headquartered in California. He brought an action against the majority shareholder and a nonresident defendant, Groeneweg, who was a resident and citizen of the Netherlands. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that he had been promised an ownership interest in dmarcian’s European affiliate, dmarcian EU.
In moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Groeneweg stated that he was a Dutch citizen and had lived in the Netherlands all his life. He further stated that he did not own or operate a business in California, did not conduct business or personally direct any business activities in California and did not own property in California. On the strength of these assertions, the trial court granted Groeneweg’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed.
In finding that personal jurisdiction over Groeneweg could properly be exercised, the Court noted that although Groeneweg was formally affiliated with dmarcian EU - dmarcian’s related European company – dmarcian’s California based website identified Groeneweg as one of its leaders, with no hint that he was affiliated with any other entity. The Court also found significant the fact that dmarcian and dmarcianEU shared a website, so that “anyone who attempted to access a Web site for dmarcian EU would be redirected to the dmarcian Web site”. Id. at 479. Thus, “dmarican’s EU Internet presence was a shared Web site, administered by dmarcian in California, where a dmarcian employee would assign prospective customers to dmarcian EU.” Id. at 480. These digital interconnections between Groeneweg and California-based dmarcian led the Court to conclude that Groeneweg had “purposefully availed” himself of the benefits of conducting business in California.
This article was originally published in the GGI Insider, November 2021 Issue.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014