Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Binion v. O'Neal

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionInternet and Social Media JurisdictionRule 12(b)(2)personal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictionMichigan long-arm statutedue process

Facts

Plaintiff, a Michigan resident, posted photographs of himself on his public Instagram account. O'Neal, who resided in Florida and Massachusetts, obtained one of those photographs and posted it on his Instagram and Twitter accounts next to a photograph of himself making a mocking facial expression. Plaintiff alleged that these posts ridiculed him and caused injury in Michigan. O'Neal's social media accounts had large numbers of followers, but there was no allegation that he specifically directed the posts to a Michigan audience.

Issue

Whether a Michigan federal court may exercise limited personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who posted allegedly tortious images on Instagram and Twitter, where the posts were accessible in Michigan and allegedly injured a Michigan resident but were not expressly directed at Michigan.

Rule

In a diversity case, specific personal jurisdiction must be authorized by the forum state's law and satisfy due process, which in Michigan merges into the due process inquiry. Under the Sixth Circuit's three-part test, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the forum, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's forum-state activities, and the connection with the forum must make jurisdiction reasonable. For internet-based tort claims, merely posting content on social media that is accessible in the forum is not enough; under Zippo, passive or minimally interactive, noncommercial postings do not establish purposeful availment, and under Calder, injury to a forum resident is insufficient absent something more showing that the defendant expressly aimed the conduct at the forum state.

🔒

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.

Nina Torres lives in Detroit, Michigan. Caleb Voss, who lives in Arizona, reposts a public photo from Nina’s social-media page on his public account and adds a mocking caption; the post is viewable nationwide, but nothing in the post mentions Michigan or targets Michigan users.

If Nina sues Caleb in federal court in Michigan for invasion of privacy and defamation, what is the strongest argument against specific personal jurisdiction over Caleb?

Explanation. The majority reasoned that merely posting content on social media that can be accessed in the forum is insufficient for purposeful availment. Social-media postings were treated as minimally interactive, noncommercial postings, and injury to a forum resident alone is not enough. The other choices overstate the rule or add facts the court did not require. (Derived from Binion v. O'Neal (n.d.).)