Published on:

Pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising is a profitable online service that search engines, such as Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft, provide their customers. Now recently, PPC fraud has developed and caused loss of revenues for businesses and advertisers.   PPC fraud occurs when someone or a program clicks on a company’s advertisement without intending to view the website or buy anything.

Many companies have filed lawsuits against search engines, claiming that they have breached the terms and conditions of their contracts. These companies have alleged that the search engines, acting as the intermediaries, that published their online advertisements improperly charged them for fraudulent clicks. Two questions can be raised by these implications. First, how should a chargeable click be defined within the advertising contract? Second, does a search engine have any duty to protect advertisers from fraudulent clicks?

What is PPC Advertising?

PPC advertising is interactive advertising since the visitors click on displayed ads and get routed to the advertiser’s website. The advertisements are customized under specific keywords or search terms. For example, a law firm that specializes in internet or cyberspace law may use those terms in its PPC advertising. The advertisers pay the intermediaries (e.g., Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) which publish their advertisement for a previously-agreed-upon fee.

There seem to be two forms of click fraud wrongdoers: (a) competitors; and (b) affiliates. Competitors click on their competition’s online advertisements to increase charges for their competition. Affiliate click fraud is executed by a third party (i.e., affiliate) who hosts the advertisement in exchange for a portion of the click stream revenue. Thereafter, the affiliate executes fraudulent clicks in order to increase the fees and shares of revenue. This form of fraud is executed manually or by using software programs (e.g., robots).

What Can Search Engines Do Or Claim In Their Defense?

On the defensive side, search engines and intermediaries that face a lawsuit should claim, and ultimately prove, that their conduct did not violate their contract’s terms or conditions.  In addition, they should include a provision in their contracts that gives them the sole authority in determining the click count.  This way, they can enjoy a certain degree of flexibility without acting in bad faith. They should define “actual clicks” in the contract.  They should also review their own promotional or information material and strike a balance between reassuring advertisers and forming high expectations of click fraud protection.

At this time, it is difficult to implement a functional detection system in order to detect or prevent invalid clicks. Therefore, the removal of every invalid click from an advertiser’s invoice is equally difficult.  The solution may be to utilize software that can detect, document, and prevent click fraud.  There are a variety of technologies (e.g., weblog analysis software) that can help identify suspicious clicks.

At our law firm, we assist clients in legal issues related to internet, cyberspace, and pay-per-click fraud. You may contact us in order to setup a free consultation.

Published on:

In recent years, global positioning system (“GPS”) technology has increased in usage on various GPS-enabled devices (e.g., cars, smartcards, handheld computers, and cell phones).  This technology brings value to its users, however, it has caused a significant decrease in privacy. Private and public organizations are able to collect and use the information for different purposes. For example, private organizations may collect data for marketing. Naturally, there are proponents who argue for governmental or non-governmental collection and use of information for different reasons (e.g., national security, emergencies). There are also proponents who argue that the collection and use of information leads to abuse (e.g., unauthorized access, invasion of privacy). Therefore, we need clear and uniform legal standards to control when anyone can collect and use information about an individual.

At this time, there is no law that restricts the government’s collection or use of GPS tracking information against individuals. However, some states have enacted legislation that restricts the commercial use of GPS. The Fourth Amendment limits the use of GPS technology, but its protection from unreasonable search and seizure is less effective due to recent technology advancements.

The main issue is privacy.  In today’s highly-technological world, most individuals carry their cell phones all the time. So, wireless network providers (a/k/a cell phone carriers) are able to track the individual’s movements. On a side note, GPS technology has been used to save lives in emergencies. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) mandates wireless network providers to submit the cell phone location for emergency 911 calls (“E911”) that have been made from cell phones. The law on this issue is relatively clear. It permits cell phone carriers to provide information to third parties (e.g., FBI, NSA, or Police) for E911 emergency calls only. However, they need the cell phone owner’s consent in any other situation.

It is now easier to collect information due to users’ constant interaction with satellites or towers.  So, there is a remarkable potential for abuse. Instead of implementing clear regulations, the Department of Justice and EFF continue with their disputes.  This discrepancy has caused the courts to be divided on the issues. In fact, the courts have grappled with the lack of jurisdictional consensus on the legal standards. See https://www.aclu.org/how-government-tracking-your-movements for more information.

As mentioned above, technology allows access to an individual’s activities or location. The government is behind in implementing policies to protect an individual’s right to privacy.  So, in a society that is overwhelmed with technology, there is little legislative guidance on individual privacy laws.

In sum, the state and federal lawmakers should intervene because there have been, and probably will be, privacy violations.  At this time, the courts seem to have discretion to allow or disallow access to information without requiring a high burden of probable cause.  There is no doubt that GPS (and similar technologies) provide advantages to users, however, there are disadvantages that can cause unwarranted complications (e.g., invasion of privacy) for the same users.

At our law firm, we assist clients in legal issues related to internet, cyberspace, and privacy issues. You may contact us in order to setup a free consultation.

Published on:

In recent times, e-residencies (a/k/a “electronic residency”) have become a trend in some European societies. For example, the Republic of Estonia implemented this concept into its banking systems in order to permit people to manage their funds in an electronic environment. According to the Information System Authority, in 2001, the first nation-wide ID-card was introduced as the primary identity document for Estonian citizens both in the real and digital world. It is possible to attach a digital signature to the ID-card that constitutes a handwritten signature.

The Republic of Estonia is operating on the cutting-edge of technology. It has created an electronic state (“e-State”) where almost all transactions are completed by using technology. For example, Estonians developed Skype. The government permits its citizens to start a business online, pay taxes online, administer schools online, and pay their car park fees by mobile phone. It seems that their logistics transcend most societies. However, their achievements have not been without problems. In 2007, a cyberattack took place against its government’s websites and data communication networks.

What are the legal ramifications?

One legal issue comes up in the context of cyberwars. Before cyberwars, data assembly about an adversary that wasn’t espionage or treason was fair game and not an act of war. However, cyberattacks have blurred the line between espionage and information warfare. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Russia has been accused of launching cyberattacks against Estonia and Georgia, China has been accused of launching them against the U.S. government and U.S. companies (e.g., Google), and the United States has been accused of launching them against Iran. So, the legal ramifications can cause political friction between nations. On a side note, such conduct can cause lawsuits between governmental and non-governmental agencies.

What are the pros or cons of running an e-State?

First, the advantage is efficiency. It can allow the public and private sectors to run their operations in a less arduous way.   The disadvantage can be risk. For example, the United States government has been subject to cyberattacks. In November 2008, there was a significant breach of Department of Defense’s networks at the Central Command, wherein the infiltration allowed an unnamed foreign intelligence agency to extract critical operational plans without detection.

iWars may emerge. This type of technological warfare will increase in probability as nations embrace the internet. iWar can manipulate low security infrastructure and be instigated by individuals, corporations, and communities. For example, the network infrastructure can be instigated by a Denial-of-Service (“DoS”) attack which bombards a high volume of information requests to overwhelm a network system. This form of attack can cause significant discrepancies, wherein the network system becomes unable to respond to legitimate requests.

A Distributed Denial-of-Service (“DDoS”) attack occurs when many computers attack an individual system. When conducting a DDoS attack, the culprit uses thousands of infected computers (e.g., zombies, bots) to concurrently attack a single system. Or even worse, a Permanent Denial-of-Service (“PDoS”) attack may occur, which damages a system so badly that it requires hardware replacement or reinstallation. Unlike a DDoS attack, which is used to sabotage a service or website, a PDoS is usually a hardware sabotage.

At our law firm, we assist clients in legal issues related to internet, cyberspace and technology. You may contact us in order to setup a free consultation.

Published on:

In general, the interested parties in litigation engage in some sort of “alternative dispute resolution,” or ADR, in order to resolve disputes. In fact, ADR may be used to settle cases that are still pending in court. Both the judicial and legislative branches of government have established new programs in order to promote judicial economy. There are both general and specific applications of the alternative dispute resolution. For example, the United States District Court for the Central District of California offers three options. First, a settlement conference with the district judge or magistrate who is assigned to the case. Second, a mediation with a neutral selected from the Court Mediation Panel. Third, a private mediation.

The courts can use various sanctions to urge the interested parties to engage in ADR. For example, sanctions may include imposing court costs, awarding legal fees, contempt, denial of trial de novo (amounting to confirmation of an arbitrator’s award), and dismissal of the pending litigation. However, they can only use these methods in limited circumstances and pursuant to applicable guidelines.

The trial courts have been allowed to use sanctions to force participation in alternative dispute resolution (e.g., arbitration or mediation). The sanctions that were used, included, contempt, denial of trial de novo, striking of pleadings, and dismissal. Yet, sanctions for failure to attend mediation cannot be imposed without notice and hearing. For example, in Rizk v Millard, 810 S.W. 2d 318 (Tex. App. Houston, 14th Dist., 1991) the Court of Appeals held that a trial court judge’s order striking the pleadings of a defendant, after a hearing in which it was determined that defendant violated a compromise agreement, when there was no pending motion to strike, no notice to defendant, and no hearing, violated due process. Although, it is rare, but in some case, the court may consider the argument that opposing counsel should be sanctioned for the failure to attend mediation or arbitration.  The dismissal of a case is rare as the court has the option to impose additional costs and attorney’s fees on the recalcitrant party or his/her attorney for their failure to participate in such proceedings.

In the past, the following actions have resulted in the court’s consideration of imposing sanctions: (i) nonattendance by a party’s attorney; (ii) failure to attend an arbitration proceeding which was a prerequisite to the filing of a suit under state law; (iii) failure of parties to participate actively; (iv) active circumvention of dispute resolution proceedings; or (v) failure to present evidence.

In fact, California Code Civil Procedure § 128.5 provides the trial courts authority to impose reasonable expenses (e.g., attorney’s fees) incurred by another party as a result of bad-faith actions. So, if the other side is acting in a frivolous manner, then it can face the possibility of incurring additional fees.

It is beneficial to agree to engage in alternative dispute resolution either before or during litigation.  In some situations, the contract that the parties signed requires them to make a good-faith effort to resolve their disputes by way of mediation, and thereafter, by and through arbitration. However, the other side may not always be cooperative as they may make every effort to prolong the case.   This type of conduct may force the claimant to file a complaint in state or federal court and compel arbitration.

At our law firm, we assist clients in resolving their disputes, whether through ADR or otherwise. You may contact us in order to setup a free consultation.

Published on:

In recent years, much of consumer retail consumption has transitioned to the online marketplace. So, many of us engage in e-commerce, especially when shopping for the upcoming holiday season. While e-commerce is convenient and easy, consumers are becoming more aware of the risks posed by hackers that commit online fraud. Merchants who administer websites for online shopping must take measures to assure that their sites are protected from online hackers and fraud. Online merchants may be held liable for online fraud if the proper steps are not taken to prevent it. Are you an online merchant? Are you worried about protecting the sensitive information of your customers? If so, then you must take certain steps to prevent fraud and unauthorized access (i.e., hacking).

How Does Online Fraud Occur?

Online fraud is fraud that is committed using the Internet. This type of fraud typically comes in two forms: (i) financial fraud; and (ii) identity theft. Financial fraud often occurs when a hacker collects a consumer’s financial information to steal money.  Identity theft usually occurs when a hacker collects a consumer’s information, and then uses it to open bank, mortgage, or credit card accounts. Many times the two types of fraud happen concurrently. Hackers often target e-commerce websites because consumers are constantly offering their credit card and personal information through these websites. Online merchants must take precautions to prevent hacking that leads to this kind of fraud.

What Is An Online Merchant’s Liability If There Is Online Fraud?

An online merchant is a person or business who accepts payment, usually credit cards, in exchange for goods and/or services through an online website. An online merchant may be held liable from a customer’s loss due to online fraud occurring through the merchant’s website. Often a financial institution (e.g., bank issuing credit cards) will bring an action against a merchant for failure to protect customer data from unauthorized access that led to the fraudulent use of that information. If the institution and/or customer can show that the loss was directly caused by the merchant’s lack of protection, then the merchant will be held liable. Therefore, online merchants must take reasonable steps to protect customer data. Merchants can and should take the following measures to protect against hackers committing online fraud. For example, choose a secure e-commerce platform with sophisticated programming language that ensures a secure connection during checkout. Use a system that verifies customer credit card and address information, and do not store this data longer than necessary. Require that customers utilize strong passwords, and track all their orders by number. Set up alerts when suspicious activity occurs. Train your employees in security measures and layer those measures for additional security. Closely monitor your website with regular scans to detect vulnerabilities. Make sure your systems are always updated. Think about using the cloud to reduce the need for hardware and protecting it, and invest in a fraud management service that reduces merchant liability when a customer suffers a data loss. Lastly, back up the data on your website, so that you do not lose important customer information.

These steps will greatly reduce the opportunity for a hacker to access sensitive customer information to commit fraud. If you are an online merchant and want to take steps to reduce your liability from online fraud, you may contact us to speak to an attorney.

Published on:

The best advertising directs a company’s message directly to the customer.  Direct telephone marketing is an effective way to accomplish this kind of advertising.  However, the Telephone Consumer Protect Act (“TCPA”) now restricts how businesses can engage in direct telephone marketing.  But, there are many other ways companies can directly reach consumers—i.e., text messages, emails, and instant messages. These kinds of communications may not violate the law against direct telephone marketing.  Is your company looking for more effective marketing? Are you unsure how you can advertise directly to customers’ devices?  If so, then recent interpretations of the TCPA may allow your business to advertise directly to customer devices.

What Is the TCPA?

The TCPA was enacted in 1991 to restrict telemarketing and the use of automated telephone calls for the purpose of marketing. The law makes it unlawful “to make any call using any automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) . . . to any service for which the party is charged for the call.” An ATDS means equipment, which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.  A recent case has helped limit the definition of an ATDS.  In Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, a district court in California held that text message marketing may not be an ATDS, and therefore is in compliance with the TCPA.

What Does the Marks Case Mean for Your Company?

The defendant, Crunch, a San Diego gym, utilized a third-party platform to send promotional text messages to gym members and potential clients.  Crunch used three methods to input client phone number information into the third-party platform, all of which involved a person inputting the data.  Crunch could then send mass text messages to everyone in the database when it wanted to publish an advertisement. The court held that this system did not violate the TCPA because the platform was not an ATDS.  The platform did not store or produce numbers to call, it did not use a random number generator, and it did not then dial those random numbers.  The holding in this case means that a company can utilize a database of customer and potential customer information for telephone marketing.  However, the company must ensure that a person, and not a random number generator, collects the data.  Also, the system must not have the ability or potential to randomly generate numbers and send text messages to those numbers.  The holding in this case could potentially be extended to other forms of telephone communication (e.g., instant messaging).  Yet, a system like this could be deemed an ATDS if the platform has the potential capacity to store or produce telephone numbers without human involvement via new software.  In Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., the same court held Yahoo’s text message system was an ATDS because it had this potential.  These two cases allow businesses to utilize mass-marketing text messages as long as a person manually inputs the recipients’ information into the system.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh we assist clients in legal matters involving changes in internet, technology, and telecommunication laws. You may contact us to speak with an attorney regarding your questions or concerns.

Published on:

The purchase of commercial general liability and umbrella insurance policies are ways to protect your business from liability. However, these types of policies have not adapted to protect policyholders from certain types of cyber liability.  This issue was recently exposed in a case against Urban Outfitters, Inc., and its subsidiary, Anthropologie, Inc. (collectively “Urban Outfitters”). Urban Outfitters found itself with no suitable insurance coverage when facing several lawsuits for privacy infringement that resulted from credit card transactions. Many businesses collect customer data and infringements of customer privacy may not be covered by traditional insurance policies. Do you run a business that collects consumer data? Are you unsure how far your insurance coverage extends in protecting against consumer data breaches? If so, then you may contact us to speak to an attorney about whether you should obtain cyber liability insurance.

What Was the Issue in the Urban Outfitters Case?

In OneBeacon America Insurance Company v. Urban Outfitters, et al., Urban Outfitters was sued in three different states for consumer privacy breaches. Urban Outfitters was sued because of its practice of collecting consumer zip code information when processing credit card transactions. This practice violated multiple consumer privacy laws. Urban Outfitters then looked to its insurance company to defend the multiple lawsuits. However, the insurance company claimed that its general liability policy did not cover that kind of privacy breach. The federal court in Pennsylvania agreed, and held that the insurance company was not obligated to defend Urban Outfitters in any of the lawsuits. The general liability policy only covered “oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,” and even though Urban Outfitters violated consumer privacy, it never published that material.

What Lessons Can Businesses Learn From the Urban Outfitters Case?

In general, businesses should take steps to ensure that insurance policies cover all types of privacy violations. This can be accomplished with a tailored cyber liability insurance policy. These policies can cover a range of risks (e.g., data breach, media liability, extortion, and network security breach). However, every company is structured differently and each is exposed to a different set of risks. As such, mainstream insurance companies are now offering pre-packaged cyber liability insurance along with custom policies. In most instances, the language in an insurance policy is filled with complicated legal terms. So, it is recommended that you speak with an attorney to ensure that the insurance policy properly protects your company. You can also take steps to reduce your risk and cost of an insurance policy on your own. Insurance companies rely on the following factors in determining premiums: (1) general risk exposure of the industry; (2) general risk exposure of the size of company; (3) loss history; (4) years in business; (5) financial condition; (6) extent of use of outsourced network security services; (7) dependency on third-party networks; and (8) in-depth analysis of network security pursuant to standards (e.g., ISO 27001).

In sum, businesses cannot control all of these factors, but they can improve their financial condition and network security.  You may contact us to speak to an attorney about your questions regarding cyber liability insurance.

Published on:

Peer-to-peer networks have provided an invaluable service that allows users to share information and data around the world. These networks became popular for media sharing, culminating in the infamous Napster scandal. Many are aware of the copyright issues that arise with the use of peer-to-peer media sharing. However, there are other cyber-crime issues that users may expose themselves to when using these networks. Peer-to-peer networks may be used in a variety of legal ways, but users must protect themselves from cyber crime prevalent over these networks. Are you developing or using a peer-to-peer network? If so, then you should be aware of the cyber crimes that you may be exposed to or unintentionally committing.

What is a Peer-to-Peer Network?

A peer-to-peer network is created when two or more computers connect and share resources without going through a separate server.  Typically, peer-to-peer networks are accessed through free software that allows the user to find and download files on another user’s computer.  The traditional computer network uses a client and server model, in which the client computers store and access data on a dedicated server. Peer-to-peer networks move away from the dedicated server. So, each computer is a client and a server. This empowers each user to access and share information directly instead of through a central hub. These networks also provide users with more control. Users can decide to which computers to connect, what files to share, and how many system resources to devote to the network.  Users have many controls over a peer-to-peer network.  However, the average user may expose himself to committing and being the victim of cyber crimes if he does not know how to control the network settings.

What Cyber Crimes are Associated with Peer-to-Peer Networks?

There are several cyber crimes to which peer-to-peer network users expose themselves.  The FBI has highlighted three common crimes.  The most well-known issue in the use of peer-to-peer networks is copyright infringement.  Sharing copyrighted music, movies, and software is a violation of copyright laws. Sharing these copyrighted materials can expose the user to both civil and criminal penalties. Yet, many peer-to-peer users do not violate copyright laws.  Even with lawful use, users may expose themselves to become victims of cyber crime. Computer hackers often take advantage of the openness of peer-to-peer networks to access other computers. Many hackers specifically create worms and viruses that are spread through these networks.  Further, without configuring peer-to-peer software correctly, hackers may be able to access the computer, allowing hackers to see and download information directly from the hard drive. The most disturbing cyber crime that occurs through peer-to-peer networks is child exploitation and obscenity.  Those involved in child exploitation innocuously label files, so that users think they are downloading something legal when accessing files through peer-to-peer networks.  Parents may know their children are using peer-to-peer networks to download media, but they may be unaware that their children are accessing obscene material.  Files are freely accessed and shared on peer-to-peer networks, and there are no built-in parental protections.

In sum, using a peer-to-peer network can help users effectively share and store information.  Nevertheless, users must be aware of their exposure to cyber crime when using these kinds of networks.  You may contact us to speak to an attorney about your exposure to cyber crimes when using peer-to-peer networks.

Published on:

The writing is on the wall.  The future of television and media consumption is moving away from network channels and physical sales to an “On-Demand Internet” streaming model.  This trend has already begun with millennials.  Millennials, as a group, do not subscribe to cable television or purchase music. Instead, services like Netflix, Hulu, and SoundCloud provide Millennials with On-Demand access to television shows, movies, and music. Television networks and traditional media companies must adjust to this new trend. This issue recently came to a head in the Supreme Court’s decision in ABC v. Aereo. The Court’s decision, while resolving the immediate issue in the case, has caused a problem in the larger scheme of things. The decision has put a new spin on how the Court applies the Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976. If you provide digital media content through Internet streaming or access content through the cloud, then the Aereo decision could affect you.

What Was the Issue In ABC v. Aereo?

Aereo is a company that provides a small device that a user can connect to a computer for a monthly fee. The device allows the user to pick up network television broadcast signals and stream them directly to the user’s computer.  ABC and other network broadcasters sued Aereo for copyright infringement. The issue in the case was whether Aereo’s device fits under the definitions of performance and public transmission within the Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976.  The Transmit Clause describes the exclusive right to “transmit or otherwise communicate a performance . . . of the [copyrighted] work . . . to the public by means of a device or process . . .”  The Court held that Aereo did transmit ABC’s performance and that the transmission was to the public.  Therefore, Aereo infringed upon ABC’s copyrights.

How Did the Supreme Court’s Decision Affect the Transmit Clause?

The problem that has arisen out of the case is not the ultimate decision, but instead, the rationale the Court utilized to get to that decision. The Court looked at the issue in an antiquated perspective. The Court asked whether the Aereo device is an antenna or a cable system.  The Court decided that Aereo was not a cable system, but that it was like a cable system. The problem is that Aereo does not act like a cable system.  A cable system grabs a channel’s feed and then transmits that feed to its customers simultaneously. Aereo, on the other hand, utilizes a system in which each subscriber decides to what feed the Aereo device will tune. Each user tunes the Aereo device to the desired channel instead of Aereo broadcasting constantly to all of its subscribers. This model is inherently unlike a cable system. In fact, the Aereo device represents the new kinds of media consumption that do not fit neatly into current copyright laws. If Aereo’s device is transmitting a performance to the public, then is the average user doing the same when streaming media from the Internet or accessing media from the cloud? The Aereo decision has changed the way companies and average users must understand the Transmit Clause. What we once considered private transmissions could now be considered public and an infringement of copyright law.

You may contact us to speak to an attorney about how your streaming practices and/or media consumption are affected by this decision.

Published on:

In recent times, a significant amount of business is conducted online.  The Internet connects a business to customers anywhere in the world. What happens when a dispute arises between a business in one state and a customer in another? If the customer wants to bring legal action against the business because of a transaction that occurred online, where does the customer file the action? The answer may depend on the type of website. The courts have created the distinction between active and passive websites. When a transaction occurs through an interactive website, the business may be subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the customer accessed it. Is your business developing a website? Did you know that an interactive website may subject you to the jurisdiction of any state? If so, then you must understand the difference between active and passive websites, and how they may affect your legal rights.

What Is the Active and Passive Distinction?

An interactive or active website is one where business transactions can occur through the website or information can be exchanged to solicit business. On the other hand, a passive website is one that is used to post information for potential customers, but it does not allow for interaction. A passive website is similar to an advertisement. The distinction is crucial because courts will confer personal jurisdiction over companies that maintain active websites in the state where the consumer is located. Active websites include sites that foster online sales, sites that take measures to solicit business in a particular forum, and the use of a third-party site to sell an item. Not every website fits neatly into these two categories, and issues arise when the website falls between the two.

How Do Courts Decide Whether A Website Is Active Or Passive?

In general, the courts look to a number of factors when deciding whether a website is active or passive. A federal court in Virginia held that an active website did not confer personal jurisdiction in Virginia because the website was not directed toward Virginia and no Virginia residents visited the site. On the other hand, another federal court in Connecticut held that a site that seemed passive did confer personal jurisdiction on the company because of a toll-free number posted on the website. The court held that the number was enough to be a solicitation. While many courts apply the “active/passive” test, not all rely on it exclusively. The Second Circuit has stated, “a website’s interactivity may be useful for analyzing personal jurisdiction,” but “traditional statutory and constitutional principles remain the touchstone of the inquiry.” The general test for personal jurisdiction is whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the state in question. Courts apply the minimum contacts test on a case-by-case basis. To apply this test to a website, a court would look to the “quality and nature” of the site’s activity and whether that activity is such that it would be fair to hale the defendant into that jurisdiction.

If you plan on doing business online, then you must be aware of whether your website is active or passive. The distinction could be the difference of you being summoned into court on the other side of the country. If you are concerned about the interactivity of your website, you may contact us to speak to attorney.