Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Triple Up Limited v. Youku Tudou Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionInternet JurisdictionRule 4(k)(2)personal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictionRule 4(k)(2)due process

Facts

Youku is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal place of business in China, operates Mandarin-language video websites, has no offices or employees in the United States, and receives less than one percent of its website views from the United States. Triple Up, a Seychelles corporation, alleged that three Taiwanese films were viewable on Youku's websites in the United States and that Youku itself uploaded them, while Youku contended some films were licensed only for China, that geoblocking was used for Youku-uploaded content, and that any non-geoblocked versions were user-uploaded. The websites sometimes displayed geographically targeted English-language advertisements for American products when accessed from the United States, and Youku had some U.S. business ties, including NYSE listing-related activity and contracts with U.S. firms. Triple Up's attorney in the District of Columbia streamed the films in 2015, but Triple Up did not allege any other U.S. viewing, and Youku removed all versions within 24 hours of notice in January 2016.

Issue

Whether the court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Youku, either under the District of Columbia long-arm statute or Rule 4(k)(2), consistent with due process, based on Youku's internet and U.S.-related contacts. A related issue was whether Triple Up was entitled to jurisdictional discovery to establish such jurisdiction.

Rule

For specific jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), the plaintiff must show that the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court here, that the defendant purposefully directed activities at forum residents or purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in the forum, and that the plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to those contacts. In internet cases, mere accessibility of a website in the forum is insufficient; failure to geoblock does not itself amount to purposeful availment; and the relatedness requirement demands some causal relationship between the defendant's U.S. contacts and the episode in suit.

🔒

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.

Nordstream Media Ltd., a Singapore company, operates a Thai-language video site from Bangkok with no U.S. offices or employees. A filmmaker from Peru sues in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging one of her films could be streamed in the United States, but she alleges no U.S.-targeted conduct other than the site's availability here.

Assuming the federal claim and Rule 4(k)(2)'s nonconstitutional prerequisites are satisfied, is specific personal jurisdiction most likely proper?

Explanation. Specific jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) still requires due process: purposeful direction or purposeful availment plus relatedness. The majority held that mere accessibility of a foreign website in the United States is insufficient. The plaintiff must show more than the fact that U.S. viewers can reach the site. (Derived from Triple Up Limited v. Youku Tudou Inc. (n.d.).)