October 26, 2004 The Hague John Rothchild Wayne State Law School Detroit, Michigan, United States

1. Jurisdiction over E-Commerce Transactions: United States LawThe Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act October 26, 2004 The Hague John Rothchild Wayne State Law School Detroit, Michigan, United States jrothchild@wayne.edu

2. Personal jurisdiction • Constitutional rule of due process • Rule of fairness • Requires sufficient contacts with forum state John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

3. Zippo criterion • Three categories: • Doing business with residents of forum jurisdiction • Posting a passive website • Middle category: depends on “the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information” John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

4. Revision of the Zippo test • Directs electronic activity into the state • “With the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State” • Gives rise to a cause of action — ALS Scan v. Digital Svc. Consultants John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

5. Effects test • Intentional actions • “Expressly aimed at the forum state” • “Causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered—and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered—in the forum state” John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

6. Revision of the effects test • Takes “expressly aimed” requirement more seriously • “Mere foreseeability that the defendant’s conduct would have such an effect is not sufficient.” — Young v. New Haven Advocate John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

7. Convergence of Zippo and effects test • Both require the defendant to take some action that indicates a specific intent to have contacts with people or businesses located in the territory where the court sits John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

8. International applications • Application of Zippo: • Graduate Management Admission Council v. Raju: targeting of US found based on providing ordering instructions • Applications of the effects test: • MGM v. Grokster: defendant charged with knowing of effect on California industries • Yahoo! v. LICRA: no jurisdiction because no wrongful conduct John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

9. UCITA • Like the Uniform Commercial Code But • Unlike UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce • Unlike Uniform Electronic Transactions Act John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu

10. UCITA is controversial • Opposed by consumer protection advocates • Adopted in only two states • Banned by “bomb-shelter” legislation in four states • NCCUSL no longer promotes it John Rothchild, Wayne State Law School, jrothchild@wayne.edu