Can personal jurisdiction be established over defendants selling greeting cards online?

Full question:

In a copyright infringement case: 3 defendants; 2 in Illinois; 1 in Texas. All 3 were in Illinois at the time of the infringement. The defendants created A website to sell Greeting Cards. The copyright owner of the artwork for the greeting cards lives in California where he filed suit for infringement. The website remained up for four (4) years before it was discovered by the Plaintiff to be selling the copyrighted items. Can the Plaintiff establish 'Personal Jurisdiction' over the defendants simply because the greeting cards were being sold over the internet and because the Plaintiff's business is in California, which is also where he discovered the mirror website inadvertently while surfing the web? Can Personal Jurisdiction be established based on the circumstances that I've indicated?

• Category: Civil Actions
• Subcategory: Jurisdiction
• Date: 04/07/2025
• State: California

Answer:

The court will determine whether personal jurisdiction can be established based on the specific circumstances of the case. Important factors include how the defendants advertised, promoted, or sold their products in California through the website. Generally, the more interactive a website is, the more likely personal jurisdiction can be established. Conversely, a passive website that merely provides information is less likely to establish jurisdiction.

The precedent set in Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is commonly referenced for this analysis. In that case, the court noted that the likelihood of establishing personal jurisdiction is directly related to the nature and quality of commercial activity conducted online. The court developed a 'sliding scale' for personal jurisdiction based on internet usage:

• At one end are defendants who clearly conduct business online, such as entering contracts with residents of another state and transmitting files over the internet. In these cases, personal jurisdiction is usually appropriate (e.g., CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996)).
• At the opposite end are passive websites that do little more than provide information, which do not typically establish personal jurisdiction (e.g., Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)).
• Interactive websites fall in the middle, where jurisdiction depends on the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchanges (e.g., Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996)).

Courts have ruled that it is unfair to hold internet users accountable for being brought into any jurisdiction simply because their website content is accessible there. Merely viewing a website does not create jurisdiction, as that would allow anyone with a website to be sued anywhere.