Jurisdiction of American state courts over out-of-state defendants is determined by state law, but is limited by constitutional considerations. If the defendant does not have sufficient contacts with the state, it is unconstitutional for the state court to consider the dispute. With respect to defamation suits, not only does the defamatory information actually reach a sufficient number of state residents, but also the foreign defendant’s purposeful actions directed at that state are necessary for state court jurisdiction over the out-ofstate defendant to arise. In the case of the media, such a purposeful action might be, for example, selling a significant number of copies of a magazine in that state or advertising its website in that state. However, the posting of defamatory information on a website available in that state does not, by itself, create jurisdiction over the publisher in state courts. If, for example, a foreign-language website describes events outside the United States, a U.S. court would probably not have jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff’s reputation in the United States was damaged. But if an English-language publication on some website intentionally defames a state resident by describing his or her activities in that state, the publication will likely be found to be “directed at” that state, and a state court will consider the defamation claim. The plaintiff’s location in this state in a defamation action is not sufficient to give rise to state court jurisdiction over a defendant who does not have sufficient minimal contacts in the state. To hear such a dispute in that state would violate the defendant’s constitutional right to “due process” because of the burdensome nature of his participation in the process.
Riding Circuit: Bringing the Law to Those Who Need It