Blessing, et al. v. Chandrasekhar, No. 20-5850 (6th Cir. 2021).

Defendants’ Tweets about about plaintiff’s activities in Washington, DC at a pro-life rally in January, 2019, reached the plaintiffs in their state of residence, Kentucky.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that this “receipt” of the Tweets,  without more, provides an insufficient premise for the assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendants.  Something more than an online post must be involved for a court to conclude that defendants had contacts with a forum state sufficient to support personal jurisdiction.  

Blessing v Chandrasekhar, No. 20-5850 (6th Cir 2021).

JustLawful Observation: One would think that after a quarter century of ubiquitous internet activity that judicial guidance concerning jurisdiction would by now be defined adequately, if not comprehensively.  This is not the case, and particularly so when considering the incorporeal world of online activity.  Although the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that jurisdiction may be asserted for sales tax purposes where purchases are made (to the distress of many), questions concerning assertion of jurisdiction over non-U.S. entities or intellectual property remain.  

Daniel Canedo, Plus or Minus America: Spanski, Geoblocking Technology, and Personal Jurisdiction Analysis for Nonresident Defendants, 31 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 339 (2021). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol31/iss2/1

Jesse Lake, Hey, You Stole My Avatar!: Virtual Reality and Its Risks to Identity Protection, 69 Emory L. J. 833 (2020). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol69/iss4/5

Hayes R. Holderness, Navigating 21st Century Tax Jurisdiction, 79 Md. L. Rev. 1 (2019) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol79/iss1/2

Niesel, Zoe (2019) “#PersonalJurisdiction: A New Age of Internet Contacts,” Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 94 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol94/iss1/3