The article “Personal jurisdiction and the marketing of goods and services on the Internet” was written by Dickerson T., Chambers C.E., and Cohen J. in 2012. Below is a bulleted list of the key points discussed in the article.
- In their article, Dickerson et al. (2012) examine the issue of asserting personal jurisdiction in selling travel services online. Personal jurisdiction over international corporations has become an increasingly pressing concern as more and more commerce is conducted online, particularly in promoting and selling products and services. Dickerson et al. (2012) affirm that although online services raise several suspicions about the services being provided, the number of people using the Internet to book a trip has increased significantly over the past several years. Moreover, retailers’ innovative approaches to Internet-based travel service sales continue to proliferate.
- According to Dickerson et al. (2012), it is generally acceptable to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign travel provider, such as an airline or hotel, if that provider does business through a wholly owned subsidiary, an agent, a joint venture, or a parent organization, or if that provider maintains an office with employees, a local telephone number, and a bank account. They further argue that establishing personal jurisdiction becomes trickier and a problem when no such indicators of actual presence exist. For instance, a foreign travel provider or vendor might do business via a freelancer, travel agency, tour operator, or online marketplace.
- Dickerson et al. (2012) further assert that Recent cases in various jurisdictions have examined the scope to which consumer access to a website from any location can establish personal jurisdiction in that forum. They make use of the case, Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., a trademark infringement action brought by the maker of “Zippo” lighters against a computer news service with the web address name “zippo.com,” since it provides a practical examination of the applicable law in this context (Dickerson et al., 2012). The court exercised personal jurisdiction using the following reasoning; reasoning based on the burden of proof, logic based on passive websites, reason based on interactive websites, and passive websites plus. According to Dickerson et al. (2012), Zippo’s analysis and the cases that followed it presume some ongoing commercial transactions. However, this does not rule out the possibility that a single online purchase could be enough to develop a personal jurisdiction.
- According to Dickerson et al. (2012), based on the burden of proof, the plaintiffs must also prove exhaustively that the defendant engaged in enough online activities to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. They provide two examples of court cases, Wilson v. RIU Hotels & Resorts and Matthews v. Kerzner International Ltd., which involves a guest who was injured due to a water slide that was said to be defective.
- Based on passive website reasoning, Dickerson et al. (2012) confirm that most courts find it irrational to seek personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that operates an informational website available to the public but cannot be utilized for booking reservations. The authors provide an example of the case Weber v. Jolly Hotels, where the court found the website to be passive and was relocated to New York, where the defendant’s New York City affiliate hotel could take reservations for any Jolly Hotels property (Dickerson et al., 2012). Based on the passive website plus reasoning, Dickerson et al. (2012) affirm that it is reasonable to provide personal jurisdiction if the website is combined with business activities such as; the participation of parent companies’ subsidiaries in the forum, providing Instructors to a Commercial Forum Participant, answering product-related e-mails and notifying buyers of order statuses; having many interactive sections that allow users to download product demos, place orders online, and evaluate performance.
- Based on interactive websites reasoning, Dickerson et al. (2012) affirm that some courts find personal jurisdiction irrational if the websites provide information, description of services and goods offered, and e-mail communication, making it possible to make online sales using credit cards, availability of printed order form and that sales are made this way in the forum.
- Dickerson et al. (2012) provide three conclusions based on the websites’ low, middle, and high interactivity. An inadequate foundation for jurisdiction exists at the most basic level of involvement on travel websites, which involves email communications that permit consumers to obtain information but not make reservations. Second, cases finding sufficient foundation for jurisdiction have resulted from the “middle ground” of travel website interactivity, which includes the acquisition of data, contact by email, and, in reality, making travel arrangements. Lastly, purchasing traveling services through the internet and other business connections with the forum would constitute an adequate foundation for jurisdiction.
- Dickerson et al. (2012) further argue that foreign travel providers and sellers selling trips via the Internet may depend on arbitration clauses, venue selection provisions, and choice of law terms to limit their exposure to lawsuits filed in consumers’ home jurisdictions.
- However, the article leaves some consumer concerns unhandled; for instance, questions about information veracity, the possibility of hidden payments, and the security of transactions by credit card are not answered. The article also does not discuss the progress toward reconsidering the solicitation-plus concept as a suitable analytical framework for resolving jurisdictional disputes. However, Dickerson et al. (2012) affirm that the internet has changed court decisions on how to place personal jurisdictions. However, the courts have not yet reached a consensus on what establishes a minimum level of interaction in marketing services and products over the Internet.
Reference
Dickerson T. A., Chambers C.E., & Cohen J.A., (2012). Personal jurisdiction and the marketing of goods and services on the Internet. Hofstra Law Review, 41(31), pp. 31-51.