Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

The concept of cyberspace describing a widespread, interconnected digital technology. The term entered the popular culture from fantasy and therefore the arts but is now utilized by technology strategists, security professionals, government, military and industry leaders and entrepreneurs to explain the domain of the worldwide technology environment, commonly defined as standing for the worldwide network of interdependent information technology infrastructures, telecommunications, networks and computer processing systems. Personal jurisdiction refers to the ability that a court should make a call regarding the party being sued in an exceeding case. Before a court can exercise power over a celebration, the U.S. Constitution requires that the party has certain minimum contacts with the forum within which the court sits.

Introduction

The authority of a court to listen to a case and resolve a dispute involving person, property and subject material is referred to because of the jurisdiction of that court. It’s the legislative function of the govt. to enact laws and judicial and/or administrative functions to enforce those laws. Thus, the principles of jurisdiction followed by a State must not exceed the bounds which law places upon its jurisdiction.

International Law and Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

Jurisdiction is a facet of state sovereignty and it refers to judicial, legislative and administrative competence. Although jurisdiction is a side of sovereignty, it’s not coextensive with it. Jurisprudence circumscribes a state’s right to exercise jurisdiction. The web today is making an entire mockery of the law….not just the standard laws but even the so-called modern laws. The very basis of any justice delivery system, the jurisdiction, which provides powers to a specific court to accommodate a selected case, is itself being threatened over the internet; leave the opposite traditional laws.

Meaning of Jurisdiction?

The meaning of Jurisdiction is that the authority of a court to listen to a case and resolve a dispute involving person, property and subject material. These principles of jurisdiction are enshrined within the constitution of a State and a part of its jurisdictional sovereignty. All sovereign independent States possess jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits and every one causes, civil and criminal, arising within these limits. Two kinds of jurisdiction:

The issue of jurisdiction should be looked into from 2 perspectives:

Prescriptive Jurisdiction

 It describes a State’s ability to define its own laws in respect of any matters it chooses. As a general rule, a State’s prescriptive jurisdiction is unlimited and a State may legislate for any matter regardless of where it occurs or the nationality of the persons involved.

Enforcement Jurisdiction

The state’s ability to enforce those laws is necessarily keen on the existence of prescriptive jurisdiction. However, the sovereign equality of States implies that one State might not exercise its enforcement jurisdiction during a concrete sense over persons or events actually situated in another state’s territory no matter the reach of its prescriptive jurisdiction. That is, a State’s enforcement jurisdiction within its own territory is presumptively absolute over all matters and persons situated therein. Jurisdiction under the data Technology Act, 2000 The State legislative enactments primarily reflect its prescriptive jurisdiction. for instance, the IT Act, 2000 provides for prescriptive jurisdiction because it states: “The provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offense or contravention committed outside India by somebody regardless of his nationality.” Further this Act shall apply to an offense or contravention committed outside India by any individual if the act or conduct constituting the offense or contravention involves a computer, computing system or network located in India. It’s the legislative function of the govt. to enact laws and judicial and/or administrative functions to enforce those laws. Thus, the principles of jurisdiction followed by a State must not exceed the boundaries which law places upon its jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

E-commerce is a 24/7 commerce. It is a web activity involving the exchange of products and services for consideration (money). Such activity may result in disputes, which could be:

(a) Municipal (domestic) or (b) international. The question is the way to resolve these disputes keeping visible the complexity of the online activity. From the purpose of identifying the jurisdiction, it’s important to grasp the character of the dispute and for that purpose, the subsequent questions are necessary: I. what has happened? ii. Where did it happen?  iii. Why did it happen? The answers would supply not only the required information associated with the business model of the web site but also the extent of economic interaction between the service provider (website owner) and also the user. The normal principles of domestic and international jurisdiction that are developed and adopted over a period of your time are now being extended to cyberspace to formulate a brand new idiom of cyber jurisdiction. This adoption would maintain continuity of established law and practice even within the realm of online activities.

U.S. Approach to Personal Jurisdiction.

It’s important to know the normal principles of jurisdiction, like personal jurisdiction, local state’s long-arm statute and therefore the due process of law clause of the US Constitution to understand how these principles are employed by various courts to resolve e-commerce related disputes. Computer crimes due to their transitional nature involve certain difficult jurisdictional questions. Suppose a hacker operating from a computer in country A, enters a database in country B, and after routing the knowledge through several countries causes a consequence in C. here at least three jurisdictions are involved and who shall try him? The dilemma was described very appropriately by La Forest, J., in Libman v. The Queen,  in the following words: “one is to assume that the jurisdiction lies within the country where the crime is planned or initiated. Other possibilities include the impact of the offense is felt, where it’s initiated, where it’s completed or again where the gravamen or the essential element of the offense materialized. it’s also possible to keep up that any country where any substantial or any a part of the chain of events constituting an offense takes place may take jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction

Meaning of non-public Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction is that the competence of a court to work out a case against a selected category of persons (natural moreover as juridical). It requires a determination of whether or not the person is subject to the court within which the case is filed. Personal jurisdiction looks into a problem from the purpose of ‘physical presence’, whether the person was a resident or a non-resident. If he’s a resident, then there’s little question about his being subject to municipal (domestic) laws. The matter arises, if he’s a non- Libman v. The Queen, (1985) 21 CCC 3D 206 270 resident, what laws would be applicable – municipal laws of the state where he’s residing or municipal laws of the state whose laws he has transgressed?

Types of Personal Jurisdiction

It may be further classified into the following 2 types: General Jurisdiction
I. The “general” jurisdiction subjects an individual to the ability of the applicable court with relevance any reason for action that may be brought. It’s historically relied on very close contacts of the person with the state, like residency or domicile within the state, physical presence within the state at the time of service of process, or another substantial “continuous and systematic” contact with the forum state.

 The “specific” jurisdiction refers the ability of the applicable court with regard to a specific reason behind action based upon some set of “minimum contacts” with the forum state that relate thereto reason for action.

Enactments of long-arm Statute The principle ‘long-arm statute’ authorizes the courts to say personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant whose principal business is outside the state on the bottom that their action (tortuous or any other) falls within the character of activity required to qualify for jurisdiction. iii. Group action of Law The ‘due process of law’ as given within the US Constitution limits the powers of the courts to exercise traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The US Constitution provides that “……no state shall…..deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without group action of law.” In Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, it had been held that the exercise or personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant must comport with constitutional due process of law. In Doe v. Unocal Corp., it had been held that when an exercise of non-public jurisdiction is The US Constitution; 5th Amendment The credit to determine ground rules for establishing personal jurisdiction for the nonresident lies with the US Supreme Court judgment in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of social insurance and Placement et al. It held that a court’s exercise of private jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper if that defendant has had certain ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such the upkeep of the suit doesn’t offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’

Analysis of the International Shoe Company Case

The importance of the International Shoe Company’s case is that it was established for the primary time that private jurisdiction might exist although the defendant had no physical presence within the forum state. It acted as a precursor to the state’s long-arm statutes. Later, with the arrival of e-commerce, this judgment has been utilized by the courts everywhere us as a longtime law in identifying “minimum contacts” to say personal jurisdiction over a non-resident. v. Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace The courts are borrowing the principles of private jurisdiction and increasing them to the cyberspace setting. The principles of jurisdiction, which were earlier applied to physical establishments, are now being successfully applied to online business establishments (websites). An internet site represents a virtual business model. So as to repair the place of jurisdiction, one may need to scrutinize the character of the web site model – whether it’s ‘business-oriented’ or ‘information-oriented’. Other key elements that should be taken into consideration are: geographical location of users, website owner and we serve.

Even the terms of service agreements, disclaimers and selection of law or forum clauses play a crucial role. Nature of the web site a web forum of business may exist within the following forms: a. Passive Website A ‘passive’ website is supposed for informational purposes only.  jazz club operator sued a Missouri club owner claiming trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition over the utilization of the name “the Blue Note”. The defendant maintained a web site promoting his Missouri “Blue Note” club and providing a Missouri signaling through which tickets to the club may well be purchased. The problem was whether the existence of the web site was sufficient to vest the court with personal jurisdiction over the defendant under New York’s long-arm statute. The court held that it didn’t. The Court considered whether the existence of the web site and telephone ordering information constituted an “offer to sell” the allegedly infringing “product’ in the big apple, and concluded it had been not.

The court noted that, although the web site is accessible to any American with Internet access, it takes several affirmative steps to get access to the current particular site, to utilize the knowledge contained there, and to get a ticket to the defendant’s club. These steps would come with the necessity to put a telephone to Missouri and to physically visit Missouri to choose up the tickets ordered. Therefore, the court concluded that any infringement which may occur would be in Missouri, not. “The mere undeniable fact that someone can gain information on the allegedly infringing product isn’t the equivalent of someone advertising, promoting, selling or otherwise making an attempt to focus on its product in New York”. It found that the defendant did nothing to “purposefully avail” himself of the advantages of latest York. There was no evidence of the defendant actively encouraging New Yorkers to go to the location. b. Interactive Websites An ‘interactive’ website could be a dynamic website and provides over ‘mere’ information. In Cody v. Ward, a Connecticut resident brought suit in Connecticut against a California resident, claiming reliance on fraudulent representations made by the defendant leading to a loss. The court held that it had valid jurisdiction over the defendant based solely upon bulletin board messages posted by the defendant on a web service’s “Money Talk” bulletin board and e-mail messages and telephone conversations from the defendant in California to the plaintiff in Connecticut. It simply concluded that the “purposeful availment” requirement was satisfied by the defendant’s electronic contacts with the plaintiff. The suit was filed in Ohio and also the defendant asserted that the territorial division Court in Ohio lacked jurisdiction over him, claiming never to own set foot in Ohio. In Hanson v. Denckla, the court held that “the unilateral activity of these who claim some relationship with the non-resident defendant cannot satisfy the necessity of contact with the forum state. the appliance of that rule will vary with the standard and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it’s essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting business within the forum state, thus invoking the advantages and protections of its laws. In EDIAS Software International v. BASIS International Ltd., and Arizona based software distributor brought suit in Arizona against a replacement Mexico software development company arising out of the termination of an agreement between the businesses and public statements made by the defendant about the termination. The defendant had no offices in Arizona. The defendant’s contacts with Arizona analyzed under the “purposeful availment” test consisted of (a) a contract with the plaintiff (executed in New Mexico with a brand new Mexico choice of law provision); (b) phone, fax and e-mail communications with plaintiff in 45 CompuServe and (c) sales of software products to the plaintiff and other Arizona residents; and visits to Arizona by officers of the defendant. The court upheld the plaintiff’s claim of private jurisdiction over the defendant.

Conclusion

Jurisdiction is a side of state sovereignty and it refers to judicial, legislative, and administrative competence. Although jurisdiction is a facet of sovereignty, it’s not coextensive with it. Jurisprudence circumscribes a state’s right to exercise jurisdiction. The very basis of any justice delivery system, the jurisdiction, which supplies powers to a specific court to accommodate a selected case, is itself being threatened over the web. During this chapter, three legal systems – American, European and Indian, which are examined, provide a maze of legal principles to know the dynamics behind personal jurisdiction in their respective jurisdiction.

References

  1. Suryajyoti Gupta, “Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction in the Internet”, Indian Bar Review, Vol. 29 (2002) p. 45; See also Lotus Case, (1927) PCIJ Ser A
  2.  Yashraj Vakil, “Jurisdictional Challenges – Cyber Crime Prosecutions”, The Lawyers Collective, February, 2005, p. 29
  3.  Lord Macmillan in Compania Naviera Vascongado v. Steamship ‘Cristina’ [1938] AC 485
  4. The US Constitution; 5th Amendment
  5. Ibid; 14th Amendment 36 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 US 462, 471-72 (1985) 37
  6. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F. 3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001)
  7. CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996);
  8. 46 Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 253 (1958);
  9. See also Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 US 286 (1980); Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 (1985); Asahi Metal Indus. Corp. Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 US 102 (1987) 47 EDIAS Software International v. BASIS International Ltd ., 947 F. Supp. 413 (1996)

Questions

Q1. Meaning of jurisdiction?

The meaning of Jurisdiction is that the authority of a court to listen to a case and resolve a dispute involving person, property and subject material. These principles of jurisdiction are enshrined within the constitution of a State and a part of its jurisdictional sovereignty.

Q2. What are the different perspectives of the jurisdiction?

  • Prescriptive Jurisdiction

It describes a State’s ability to define its own laws in respect of any matters it chooses. As a general rule, a State’s prescriptive jurisdiction is unlimited and a State may legislate for any matter regardless of where it occurs or the nationality of the persons involved.

  • Enforcement Jurisdiction

The state’s ability to enforce those laws is necessarily keen on the existence of prescriptive jurisdiction. However, the sovereign equality of States implies that one State might not exercise its enforcement jurisdiction during a concrete sense over persons or events actually situated in another state’s territory no matter the reach of its prescriptive jurisdiction.

Q3. Personal Jurisdiction in cyberspace

The normal principles of domestic and international jurisdiction that are developed and adopted over a period of your time are now being extended to cyberspace to formulate a brand new idiom of cyber jurisdiction. This adoption would maintain continuity of established law and practice even within the realm of online activities.

Q4. What is Personal Jurisdiction?

Meaning of non-public Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction is that the competence of a court to work out a case against a selected category of persons (natural moreover as juridical).

Q5. Types of Personal jurisdiction?

It may be further classified into the following 2 types: General Jurisdiction. The “general” jurisdiction subjects an individual to the ability of the applicable court with relevance any reason for action that may be brought. It’s historically relied on very close contacts of the person with the state, like residency or domicile within the state, physical presence within the state at the time of service of process, or another substantial “continuous and systematic” contact with the forum state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *