Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
Court Refuses to Exercise Jurisdiction Based on Website
The U.S. District Court for Kansas recently considered whether it was appropriate to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant company that developed, hosted and maintained a website for one of its clients, Sundance Sauna. The website was the subject of a claim made against Sundance by a competitor, Sunlight Saunas, for false advertising, unfair competition, defamation and other tortious or deceptive trade practices. The Court applied the two part test for determining whether (i) it had specific jurisdiction as a result of the defendant purposely availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Kansas, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, or (ii) it had general jurisdiction as a result of the defendant having the requisite level of ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with Kansas.
The Court held that it did not have general jurisdiction because the defendant’s website was not actually and deliberately used to conduct commercial transactions on a sustained basis with a substantial number of residents of Kansas. The Court also held that it did not have specific jurisdiction because the defendant did not purposefully direct activities at residents of Kansas. Although the website permitted users to send questions or comments through an email “hot link”, the Court concluded that the site was more “informational” than commercial in nature. Also, although the website targeted the plaintiff and the plaintiff was incorporated in Kansas, the Court concluded that the website did not target or focus on users in Kansas any more than it did users worldwide.
For a copy of the decision, visit: