Picking fights in Missouri: Baldwin's non-rule embraces the minority approach to Internet libel jurisdiction.

• Author: Isaak, Allison Marie

1. Introduction

   Personal jurisdiction is not a new concept. Rather, it is one of the oldest principles that form the foundation and structure of the U.S. court system. Thus, when the Internet became available to the general public in 1995, (1) courts were faced with the difficulty of incorporating modern Internet situations into traditional standards of personal jurisdiction. (2) Because personal jurisdiction is rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process Clauses, (3) the preferred source of guidance in the area of Internet jurisdiction is the U.S. Supreme Court. (4) However, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue, leaving the lower courts to decipher the appropriate standard themselves. (5) This has led to considerable divergence among the lower courts in deciding Internet-related disputes. (6)

   When it comes to Internet libel across state borders, courts have been particularly contradictory. (7) Many courts continue to apply the traditional "effects" tests of Calder v. Jones? despite the fact that Calder did not involve the Internet. Although many jurisdictions use this test, courts differ in how they interpret the three requirements, especially the second "express aiming" requirement. (9) The minority view is that express aiming requires no more than the mere targeting of a plaintiff who resides in the forum. (10) on the other hand, the majority view is that express aiming requires "something more" than merely targeting a plaintiff who happens to reside in the forum; the defendant must, to some extent, target the forum state as well. (11) Even within the majority view there are varying opinions regarding the extent to which the defendant must target the forum state. (12)

   Although Calder is the predominant standard of libel jurisdiction, some courts incorporate the personal jurisdiction principles of Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (13) into their analyses of libel cases. (14) However, because Burger King was a contract case, its test is not always a perfect fit for intentional tort situations. (15) In the alternative, some courts have chosen to apply the framework set forth in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., which is a nontraditional test catered specifically to Internet-related disputes. (16) As if these competing standards were not confusing enough, courts often choose to utilize two or more standards side-by-side instead of committing to only one. (17) This presents problems because courts seldom explain how such seemingly contradictory tests relate to each other. (18)

   Before Baldwin v. Fischer-Smith, (19) Internet libel jurisdiction was an unsettled issue in Missouri. (20) Because it was an issue of first impression for the Missouri Court of Appeals, the Baldwin court faced numerous possible standards from which to choose. (21) Ultimately, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District adopted the minority view of the Calder effects test. (22) The court found that to satisfy the express aiming requirement of the effects test, a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction by merely targeting a plaintiff who resides in the forum; no extra targeting of the forum state is necessary. (23) Therefore, the court opted for the looser version of the Calder effects test, one that allows the forum state greater leeway in reaching a nonresident defendant.

   The competing standards of Internet libel jurisdiction reflect the tensions between the forum state's interest in providing convenient recovery for its injured residents and the defendant's constitutional right to foresee where he might be subject to jurisdiction. In an effort to pursue these two goals as well as integrate modern Internet-related concerns, lower courts have derived numerous divergent tests for Internet libel jurisdiction, leaving the issue in a state of disorder and ambiguity. To analyze this problem, this Note will first survey the historical background of traditional personal jurisdiction principles, with particular emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court's Calder "effects" test. (24) Then, this Note will discuss how the lower courts have interpreted and misinterpreted Calder, as they attempt to incorporate Internet-related issues and merge the effects test with other personal jurisdiction standards. (25) Finally, this Note will examine Baldwin's reasoning in light of the competing standards for Internet libel jurisdiction and will recommend what future courts can do to resolve the still-unsettled issues of Internet jurisdiction in Missouri. (26)

2. Facts and Holding

   Plaintiffs Mark, Carol, Theresa, and Nicole Baldwin (27) are residents of Missouri who operate a business called Whispering Lane Kennel, located near Ava, Missouri. (28) Plaintiffs breed and sell dogs, board them for pay, and exhibit them at various dog shows throughout the country. (29) Plaintiffs work mainly with a breed of dog known as the "Chinese Crested." (30) Defendants

   Fischer-Smith and Hall, residents of Arizona and Pennsylvania, respectively, are competitors of Plaintiffs in the breeding and exhibiting of Chinese Crested dogs. (31) The controversy arose when Defendants constructed an Internet website, www.stop-whisperinglane.com, (32) which they used to denigrate Plaintiffs and their business. (33) The homepage of the website, titled "STOPWHISPERING LANE KENNEL," named the three Plaintiffs as owners and listed the location of the kennel in Ava, Missouri. (34) In response to the website, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in Missouri for libel. (35) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (36)

   Defendants' motion stated that Plaintiffs could not establish personal jurisdiction over them because they failed to show that Defendants had the minimum contacts in Missouri that are required for specific jurisdiction. (37) Although the circuit court found that Plaintiffs sufficiently asserted that Defendants committed libel in Missouri, the court decided that Plaintiffs nevertheless failed to show the minimum contacts necessary for specific jurisdiction over Defendants. (38) Therefore, the circuit court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (39)

   On appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in dismissing their suit for lack of personal jurisdiction because Missouri had specific jurisdiction over the two nonresident Defendants under the "effects" test of Calder v. Jones. (40) The Calder effects test holds that a state can assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has committed (1) an intentional act (2) directed at the state (3) causing harm the defendant knew was likely to be felt in the state. (41) As the first and third parts of the effects test were easily satisfied in this case, Plaintiffs' argument focused primarily on the test's second part. (42)

   Plaintiffs argued that Calder defines "express aiming" as making the forum state the "focal point" of both the story and the harm suffered from the libelous content. (43) Plaintiffs acknowledged that there are diverging viewpoints with regard to what "express aiming" means. (44) Plaintiffs advocated the minority position, which finds that "express aiming" occurs when a nonresident defendant's tortious conduct adversely affects a resident of the forum state. (45) On the other hand, the majority view of "express aiming" requires "something more" than an intentional act which harms the plaintiff in the forum state, i.e., some sort of additional targeting of the forum state. (46)

   In the alternative, Plaintiffs contended that even when applying the stricter majority position, Defendants' actions satisfied the "express aiming" element of the Calder effects test.47 They listed several factors to support their proposition that Defendants made Missouri the focal point of their tortious conduct: (1) Defendants' website specifically targeted both residents of and a business located in Missouri; (2) Defendants were aware that Plaintiffs and their business were located in Missouri; (3) the website listed the exact location of Plaintiffs' kennel in Missouri; (4) Missouri is the dog-breeding capital of the United States; (5) Defendants' website criticized the Missouri dog-breeding business in general; and (6) there is evidence that at least twenty-eight residents of Missouri have accessed the website. (48) Thus, Plaintiffs argued that because Defendants expressly targeted Plaintiffs as residents of Missouri, Plaintiffs' business, which is located in Missouri, and the forum state itself, Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts in Missouri to be subject to personal jurisdiction. (49)

   The Southern District agreed with Plaintiffs and held that when a nonresident defendant conducts tortious activity over the Internet and expressly aims such activity at a resident of the forum state for the purpose of causing the resident injury there, the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to be subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state. (50)

   Ill. Legal Background

   Because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet defined the parameters of personal jurisdiction in Internet cases, lower courts struggle to apply traditional principles of jurisdiction to more modern Internet-related disputes. Therefore, this section will begin by briefly recounting the landmark cases that formed the foundation of personal jurisdiction in the United States. Next, this section will discuss the narrower spectrum of libel jurisdiction, focusing on Calder v. Jones. This section then explains how the lower courts have variously interpreted Calder's "effects" test as a standard of personal jurisdiction. Finally, this section will examine the Internet's influence on traditional personal jurisdiction standards and whether the courts can establish a unitary approach to personal jurisdiction in all types of Internet-related disputes.

   1. Brief History of Personal Jurisdiction

      Although modern...