Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionInternet Jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictiongeneral jurisdictionminimum contactsInternet

Facts

ALS Scan is a Maryland corporation that alleged Alternative Products copied its copyrighted photographs onto websites and that Digital, a Georgia corporation, enabled that publication by providing bandwidth service as Alternative Products' ISP. Digital submitted affidavits stating it operated only from Georgia, had no Maryland offices, property, contracts, income, or advertising other than its own website, and had no affiliation with Alternative Products beyond an arm's-length customer relationship. Digital also stated it did not select the photographs, did not know they were posted, and did not receive income from Alternative Products' subscribers. ALS Scan showed that a Maryland employee purchased online membership access to one of Alternative Products' websites and viewed the allegedly infringing photographs there.

Issue

Whether Maryland courts may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a Georgia-based ISP based on its role in enabling a customer's website to transmit allegedly infringing content into Maryland over the Internet. The case also raised whether Digital's own website and Internet presence could support either specific or general jurisdiction in Maryland.

Rule

A state may, consistent with due process, exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state person based on Internet activity when that person (1) directs electronic activity into the state, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the state, and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the state, a potential cause of action cognizable in the state's courts. Merely placing information on the Internet or engaging in passive Internet activity does not by itself subject a person to jurisdiction in every state where the information is accessed. For general jurisdiction, Internet contacts based solely on website transmissions are insufficient without something more, because the threshold for general jurisdiction is significantly higher and requires continuous and systematic contacts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Hosting, a New Mexico company based only in Albuquerque, sells bandwidth service to a Utah customer that operates an online forum. A Virginia artist sues Blue Mesa in federal court in Richmond, alleging the customer used the forum to display her copyrighted drawings to Virginia viewers, but Blue Mesa neither selected the drawings nor knew they were online.

Is specific personal jurisdiction over Blue Mesa in Virginia most likely proper?

Explanation. Specific Internet jurisdiction requires that the defendant direct electronic activity into the forum, with manifested intent to engage in business or other interactions there, and that the activity create a cognizable cause of action in the forum. A defendant that merely provides bandwidth to an out-of-state customer, without selecting or knowingly transmitting the offending content to the forum and without targeting the forum, is engaged in conduct the court characterized as at most passive. Accessibility in Virginia and injury felt there are not enough by themselves.