Describe how the Internet is affecting personal jurisdiction. How are courts addressing the issue in the U.S. and internationally?

Question

?

Answer 1

The Internet's capacity to bypass political and geographic boundaries undercuts traditional basic limitations on a court's authority to exercise jurisdiction. These limits include a party's contacts with a court's geographic jurisdiction. For a court to
compel a defendant to come before it, there must be at least "minimum contacts"â€" the presence of a company's salesperson within the state, for example. Are there sufficient minimum contacts if the only connection to a jurisdiction is an ad on the Web originating from a remote location?
Gradually, the courts are developing a standardâ€"called a "sliding-scale" standardâ€" for determining when the exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state party is proper. The courts have identified three types of Internet business contacts:
Substantial business conducted over the Internetâ€"with contracts or sales, for example.
Some interactivity through a Web site.
Passive advertising.
Jurisdiction is proper for the first category, is improper for the third, and may or may not be appropriate for the second.
Because the Internet is international in scope, international jurisdictional issues
arise. What seems to be emerging is a standard that echoes the requirement of minimum contacts applied by the U.S. courts. Courts in many nations are indicating that minimum contactsâ€"doing business within the jurisdiction, for exampleâ€" are enough to compel a defendant to appear and that the defendant's physical presence is not required for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The effect of this standard is that a company may have to comply with the laws of any jurisdiction in which it targets customers for its product.