www.international_shoe.com: Analyzing Weber v. Jolly Hotel's Paradigm for Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

I. INTRODUCTION The unprecedented explosion of Internet has singularly induced the most profound transformation a technology has brought since capture of fire.' A review of exponential growth surrounding Internet reveals some dizzying figures. In 1981 less than 300 computers were connected to Internet.2 Eight years later number had only grown to about 90,000.3 But by 1996 an estimated 9,000,000 computers worldwide were linked to Internet.4 The most staggering figure of all, however, is estimated 200,000,000 computers which will be tapped into this remarkable global mine of information by year 1999.5 Recently, traffic on Internet has been doubling every 100 days.' Such expansive growth has created significant ramifications in legal field. Among hottest legal issues to roll off information superhighway is question of personal, or territorial, jurisdiction over Internet users. District courts across country are being inundated with cases in which plaintiffs seek to use Internet-related activity as a basis for personal jurisdiction. Naturally, Internet users are entitled to [full] protection of Due Process Clause, which mandates that potential defendants be able to `structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.'7 As recently observed in a Wall Street Journal article, however, Internet users are finding that this right is being trampled on. The article notes that several years ago the Net's freewheeling, new-frontier style made it the kind of place where entrepreneurs could make deals, launch products and grow with a minimum of headaches.' But with rise in litigation over cyberspace, [t]he fear of lawsuits is turning World Wide Web into a world of warnings.9 This problem highlights vital need of Internet users to know when and where their Internet activities will render them liable to suit. Is merely placing an informational web page on Internet sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction? What about creating a web site which solicits business and allows users interactively to exchange information? And how should jurisdictional issue be resolved in case of a person actively conducting business over Internet? Further complicating answers to these questions is fact that cyber-jurisdiction cases rarely involve Internet contacts alone. Typically in these cases defendant commits acts and makes contacts in addition to those made via Internet. How should these additional contacts be factored into jurisdictional equation? Thus far, of law concerning permissible scope of personal jurisdiction based on Internet use is in its infant stages.lo The decisions reached by courts in response to such questions will thus have a profound impact on continued development of Internet-particularly burgeoning financial activity being transacted there1-either by impeding or by fostering it. A September 1997 decision of United States District Court for District of New Jersey, Weber v. Jolly Hotels, developed an analytical model for addressing cases involving cyber-jurisdiction.l2 It proposed a three-tiered classification based upon a qualitative analysis of a defendant's contacts made over Internet. This Note examines Weber and concludes that for most part court correctly interpreted and applied International Shoe and its progeny in adopting three-tiered model. However, Weber scheme is an inadequate yardstick for determining personal jurisdiction in cyberspace. Although Weber model provides some help in analyzing jurisdictional question, by itself it is incomplete and fails to provide sufficiently detailed criteria to enable a court applying it to distinguish between differing types and varying degrees of cyber-contacts. Part II of this Note discusses backdrop of personal jurisdiction framework against which issues of cyberspace jurisdiction must be resolved. …