The thorny side of jurisdiction and the Internet

Abstract

John Doe, a Harvard alumni and former professor of computer science decided one day that technology and the Internet are the root of all evil. He moved to a one-room cabin in the heart of Montana, USA and began work on 'T-Rex' - the computer virus of the century. When 'T-Rex' was complete, he unleashed it through the Internet where it spread without detection to networks throughout the country. The virus wreaked havoc on numerous businesses, including Little Me Inc., a small family owned children's wear manufacturer in Florida. Little Me incured US $50@?000 damage and plans to file a suit against John Doe in the state of Florida. A media frenzy ensues and the headlines blaze with the all-important question, ''Will Florida court exercise jurisdiction over Montana lunatic?''^[^1^] While this scenario is merely hypothetical, it is not an unlikely one. With Ted Kaczynski and Russell Weston making headlines, another hut-man with a grudge story is hardly original. But the question that arises from this hypothetical case is illustrative of a novel predicament: how should courts exercise jurisdiction in cases involving Internet communications? Jurisdiction is the lynch-pin of jurisprudence. ''Before a court can hear and decide a particular case, it not only must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, it also must have jurisdiction over the parties to the action.''^[^2^] Jurisdiction over the parties is referred to as personal jurisdiction. The exercise of personal jurisdiction by a court is limited both by constitutional due process and state-imposed limitations. ''A state cannot exercise its adjudicatory authority over a party or a piece of property unless is has both the statutory authority and the constitutionally recognized power to do so.''^[^3^] Due process requires that prior to a court's exercise of jurisdiction, the parties who will be affected by its adjudication must be given adequate prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.^[^4^] Personal jurisdiction is premised on geographical limitations. A plaintiff cannot sue a non-resident defendant in his home state without the defendant's having established ''a relationship with that state that would reasonably lead the defendant to anticipate being sued there''.^[^5^] This same principle holds true both for state and federal courts. There are two types of jurisdiction: general and specific. Each has a different threshold that must be met before a court, whether state or federal, can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction. General jurisdiction provides the court with an all-encompassing power. If it is established that a defendant is ''generally present in the forum'' ^[^6^] - he can be subject to that forum's jurisdiction for any cases of action arising anywhere in the world. General jurisdiction requires that the defendant's contacts with the state are ''sufficiently continuous and systematic''.^[^7^] If so, the defendant can be sued in that court ''without respect to the forum's interest or ties to the cause of action''.^[^8^] In the hypothetical case above, as a resident of Montana, Hut-Man would be subject to general jurisdiction by a Montana court for damages he inflicted in Florida, New York, California - even if no causes of action were filed against him by companies or individuals in Montana.^[^9^] Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, is fact-specific - the court must assess whether under the facts of the particular case the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. ^[^1^0^] Exercise of specific jurisdiction is dependant on whether or not the defendant had 'minimum contacts' with the state^[^1^1^]. In the case above, the Florida court would have to assess whether John Doe's actions in releasing the computer virus through the Internet constituted 'minimum contacts' with the state of Florida.