Even Though A Website Is Active, A Non-resident Operator Is Not Subject To General Jurisdiction

In Robbins v. Yutopian Enterprises, Inc. Civ. No. CCB-01-3096 (D. Md. May 14, 2002). the court determined that the site was properly classified as “active” under current case law, but found this conclusion to be of “limited significance” because the plaintiff did not allege a connection between the cause of action (copyright infringement) and a specific transaction with a Maryland resident. The case was transferred to California. This decision was revolutionary because even though a website is active, general jurisdiction would not allow the case to be heard in Maryland.

The following questions have been addressed in this article:

What is the difference between specific and general jurisdiction?
How could this plaintiff have succeeded in this case?
But what about the fact that the Website was fully operational and functional?


Facebook Twitter RSS