General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, if any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?

Fordham Law Review, Sep 2017

By Eric C. Hawkins, Published on 01/01/06

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4159&context=flr

General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, if any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?

General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, if any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis? Eric C. Hawkins 0 Recommended Citation 0 Eric C. Hawkins, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role , if any, Should the Zippo Sliding - Cover Page Footnote J.D. Candidate, 2007, Fordham University School of Law I would like to thank Professor Marc Arkin for her valuable help with this Note. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss4/29 GENERAL JURISDICTION AND INTERNET CONTACTS: WHAT ROLE, IF ANY, SHOULD ZIPPO SLIDING SCALE TEST PLAY IN THE ANALYSIS? THE Since the mid-1990s, courts have struggled with the issue of whether to assert personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant who has established contacts with the forum state via the Internet. As courts searched for a way to apply the conventional "minimum contacts" rule to Internet activity, the "sliding scale" test of Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Corn, Inc. 1 emerged as the most popular framework for analyzing Internet contacts. But since Zippo was decided in 1997, numerous flaws have emerged in the sliding scale test, and critics have questioned the test's continuing usefulness. 2 Courts disagree as to whether Zippo is the proper standard for general jurisdiction cases. 3 This Note focuses on that question. Part I of this Note provides background material on the concept of personal jurisdiction and the "minimum contacts" test used to determine when a court has jurisdiction over an out of state defendant. Part I also examines the emergence of the Zippo test and some reactions to it. Part II explores the split among courts over what role, if any, Zippo should play in a general jurisdiction analysis. Part III argues that the Zippo test is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's general jurisdiction doctrine and is under-protective of due process rights in the general jurisdiction context. Therefore, this Note proposes that courts abandon Zippo in general jurisdiction cases and refocus the analysis on traditional minimum contacts doctrine. * J.D. Candidate, 2007, Fordham University School of Law. I would like to thank Professor Marc Arkin for her valuable help with this Note. 1. 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (introducing a "sliding scale test" for determining whether to assert personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant in the Internet context). 2. See infra Part I.B.3. 3. See infra Part II. I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION BACKGROUND Part I of this Note surveys fundamental personal jurisdiction concepts and their application in the Internet age. First, it covers the evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court's minimum contacts framework, from the oWriagsihninogftothne4 minimum contacts concept in International Shoe Co. v. through the Court's most recent major refinement of it in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California5. Next, this part examines the Zippo sliding scale test, which attempts to adapt minimum contacts analysis to Internet activities. 6 Part I concludes by presenting some reactions to Zippo and post-Zippo trends in Internet-based personal jurisdiction. A. Due Processand the Evolution ofMinimum Contacts The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to issue binding judgments on out of state defendants who do not have sufficient connections with that state. 7 This section of the Note examines the ways in which the Supreme Court has defined that limitation. 1. The Minimum Contacts Rule The Supreme Court addressed the constitutional limitations on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant in InternationalShoe.8 In InternationalShoe, the state of Washington sought personal jurisdiction over the International Shoe Company, a Delaware corporation that had its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, but sold its products in Washington. 9 The state was attempting to recover from International Shoe unpaid contributions to the state unemployment fund.10 The company argued that it did not have to contribute because it was not an employer within the meaning of the relevant statute. 11 International Shoe did not have an office or inventory in Washington.' 2 Instead, the company employed between eleven and thirteen salesmen, working on commission, who displayed samples there.13 When a customer made an order, the salesman would relay it to International Shoe's office in St. Louis, and the company would ship the merchandise to the customer. 14 In deciding the case, the InternationalShoe Court formally articulated the due process protection to which an out of state defendant is entitled: A state may only exercise jurisdiction minimum contacts" with the state. 15 over a defendant that has "certain This is the "minimum contacts" rule. The rule is based on the premise that enjoying the benefits of acting within a state gives rise to certain respon (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4159&context=flr

Eric C. Hawkins. General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, if any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, Fordham Law Review, 2018, Volume 74, Issue 4,