When a Facebook Business Page Does Not Support Personal Jurisdiction of a Court

In Woodhurst v. Manny’s Inc., a U.S. decision decided on April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, which was a bar in State A just a few KM from the border of State B, was liable for serving alcohol to one of its customers, who subsequently crossed over to State B to commit a crime against the plaintiffs. A lawsuit was brought in State B Court but was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, a decision which was affirmed by the Appeal Court in State B. Reasoning?

The court found there was no evidence that the defendant Bar “purposefully directed” its advertisements via its Facebook and MySpace pages to residents in State B. In short, Woodhurst suggests that having a social media presence – even an interactive one like a Facebook page – does not automatically mean that a company will be subject to suit everywhere the page is available. Courts apparently require something more for activity to be purposefully directed.

Evidently, social media is leading to innovative but curious arguments in the Court rooms. It is interesting to contrast the above decision with the often-cited decision LICRA v. Yahoo, in which an American website that offered Nazi memorabilia was forced by the Courts to implement technical measures to ensure users in France could not view or purchase any of the items offered on the American website. In that decision, Yahoo had unsuccessfully argued that it could not guarantee respect for laws in every country in which the website in question was accessible.

Smit LeSieur is a well-regarded Toronto-based law firm. Areas of practice include privacy and data protection, corporate commercial, internet and e-commerce, immigration, media and entertainment, marketing and advertising. More information is available at http://www.smitlesieur.com.