Share
A federal court in New York has considered whether it could exercise jurisdiction over an Iowa website operator for allegedly defamatory remarks posted on the website.
Tim Walker (“Operator”), an Iowa resident, operates a website named “MovingScam.com” (“Website”). The Website serves as a forum for consumers to discuss household moving companies. In August 2003, the Owner wrote that Best Van Lines, Inc. (“Mover”) “was performing interstate moving services without legal authority from the [federal regulators], and did not carry cargo insurance as required by law”. He also made other comments about the Mover on the Website.
Based on those postings, the Mover filed a lawsuit against the Operator in a New York federal court. The Operator filed a motion to dismiss based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction over him. The trial court agreed with the Operator, finding that the Mover’s allegations and the New York “long arm” statute did not give the court jurisdiction over the Operator. The Mover appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court. The only issue on appeal was whether the New York long arm statute would give the trial court jurisdiction over the Operator. When personal jurisdiction is challenged, federal courts first look to the laws of the state in which they sit. If the state law would give the court jurisdiction over the party, then the next question is whether such jurisdiction would accord with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (“Constitution”).
The New York long arm statute, or the statute courts use to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state parties, is different than most state laws because it does not give New York courts jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the Constitution; instead, the New York long arm statute limits the scope. Two sections of the long arm statute give New York courts jurisdiction over those who commit tortious acts outside of the state that cause injuries within the state, but both sections also contain exemptions for defamation claims from their jurisdiction requirements. Based on the exemptions, New York courts have allowed jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants when the defamatory statement arose out of business activities directed at the state, such as statements contained in a publication where most of the work in preparing the work took place in New York.
The court also looked at how other courts have applied the principles of personal jurisdiction to Internet website operators. Courts have required more than the fact that the website is accessible in the state; instead, courts look to see the amount of business activity being conducted by the out-of-state website in order to see whether the operator has availed himself/herself to the laws of that jurisdiction. A website which is transacting business with out-of-state individuals will be subject to personal jurisdiction in other states, whereas a website which only provides information will not be subject to personal jurisdiction. When a website has a mix of commerce and information, the court evaluates the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the website.
Applying those legal principles to the Operator, the court determined that the Operator was not subject to jurisdiction in New York. The Website was primarily a consumer information site, not a commercial website. While the Mover argued that the Operator conducted commercial activities on the Website since he sought donations from visitors, the court found the connection between the Website’s primary purpose of providing information and the donation requests was too tenuous to subject the Operator to jurisdiction in New York. The court also determined that the allegedly defamatory remarks were not purposefully directed at residents of New York, but rather were posted on a website with a national audience that happened to be accessible in New York. Since the New York long arm statute did not give the court personal jurisdiction over the Operator, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Mover’s lawsuit.
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2nd Cir. 2007). [This is a citation to a Westlaw document. Westlaw is a subscription, online legal research service. If an official reporter citation should become available for this case, the citation will be updated to reflect this information].