The growth of the internet brought with it a host of new legal issues, spanning
across all areas of the law. One significant problem that courts face today is
procedural in nature, specifically how to assess the boundaries of personal jurisdiction
in cyberspace. Is having a website viewable in a particular state enough for that
state to confer jurisdiction over the site operator? Furthermore, is a company
whose website is viewable all over the world subject to adjudication in each and
every jurisdiction therein?
Naturally, a conflict can be expected here since the nature of the internet is
expansive and virtually without bounds. Personal jurisdiction, however, relies
precisely on strict physical boundaries to determine whether a party will be subject
to adjudication in a given jurisdiction. One important factor that courts currently
use to decide whether a website owner should be subject to personal jurisdiction
anywhere that his website can be viewed is whether that site is classified as
"passive" or "interactive." An "interactive" website may be characterized by soliciting
sales of products, inviting the posting of messages, promoting contact through
a 1-800 number or providing consumer services. Such a site is far more likely
to draw its proprietor into widespread jurisdiction, due to its clear objective
of encouraging people to interact with the site and/or its active solicitation
of business. In promoting their own economic, social or political goals, such
site operators purposely avail themselves of the benefits of those states or countries
and consequently will likely be hailed into court in those jurisdictions. A "passive"
web site, on the other hand, often is little more than a mere informational site,
without attempts to solicit business or promote contact with viewers or potential
customers. This type of site is much less likely to cause the proprietor to be
held to personal jurisdiction anywhere that his site is viewable, because of its
more restrictive approach to consumer interaction.
Through current adjudication, the boundaries of personal jurisdiction over the
internet are being drawn and redrawn. Currently the "interactive" versus "passive"
distinction is a factor of considerable importance. As time passes it will be
interesting to note where new lines will be drawn and what new and evolving criteria
will be used to determine the boundaries of personal jurisdiction in cyberspace.
