ILNews

DTCI: Determining personal jurisdiction in the Twitterverse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

TwohyWhat are, or should be, the contours of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants who are alleged to have defamed forum residents using social media? The answer will vary depending on the social media platform at issue and the details of the communication at issue.

The two most prominent platforms — Facebook and Twitter — work in very different, one might say opposite, ways. One who posts an item on Facebook will generally know the scope of its distribution. The poster is presumed to be aware of his settings and whether his posts are visible to the world, only to his friends, or also to friends of friends. The poster will also know whether his post is made in a group which is open, closed or secret. And as a general matter, the Facebook poster will know the probable geographic reach of his post, given that users’ localities are public information. The poster can thus make a judgment about how widely a post will be distributed, whom it will reach, and in which localities it will be published.

The Twitter user, by contrast, has far less ability to predict whom or where a tweet will reach. Nearly 90 percent of users maintain public accounts. By its very nature, Twitter promotes the re-tweeting of user tweets. A user can be certain that a tweet will reach her immediate followers. Beyond that, however, things are murky. The original tweet may go no further than the user’s own followers. But if one of her followers who himself has 50,000 followers re-tweets her tweet, and some of his followers respond in kind, the scope of distribution can expand exponentially. Twitter generally affords the user less control than does Facebook over whom and where postings will reach, principally due to the re-tweeting mechanism.

The potential for a tweet to reach many more users and localities than originally anticipated has implications for the scope of liability and personal jurisdiction. Indiana holds that the author of a defamatory communication is liable for republication where this is a “natural consequence” of his actions. Powers v. Gastineau, 568 N.E.2d 1020, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Since Twitter users are presumed to know how the service works, including its re-tweeting mechanism, and users invariably have some familiarity with who their followers are (and thus how many indirect followers are in their potential network), it is difficult to argue that a Twitter user should be able to avoid potential liability for republished tweets. The scope of potential liability thus enlarged, one turns to the perennial question of jurisdiction.

Where a reasonable person in the poster’s position, having no general contacts with the forum, would fail to recognize that their tweet or Facebook post would be published in the plaintiff’s home state, specific jurisdiction will probably be absent. In such a case, the poster can not fairly be said to have purposefully directed his publication into the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471 (1985). A claim for defamation by a forum resident, arising from the tweet or post, will not relate to forum-state activities by the defendant. It is also significant that the author may have been unaware that the impact of his post or tweet would be felt in a particular forum, regardless of whether one formally applies the “effects test,” which represents the high-water mark for personal jurisdiction. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984). Thus, a tweet which allegedly defames a secondary or tertiary follower should not support personal jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s home forum.

By contrast, a post that causes reputational harm to a direct follower on Twitter, a Facebook friend, or member of a Facebook group to which the poster belongs will more likely support jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s home forum. In that case, a good argument can be made that, owing to the author’s awareness that her tweet or post would be published in the forum, she has purposely availed herself of conducting activities in the forum, and that the litigation (like the injury) arises out of the author’s forum state activities. Once a court is satisfied that an exercise of jurisdiction would not be premised solely on the author’s “random, isolated or fortuitous” contacts with the forum state, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984), it must determine that jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. This requires consideration of (1) the defendant’s burden in appearing; (2) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most effective resolution of the controversy; and (5) the common interests of all sovereigns in promoting substantive social policies. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 477 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980)).

The first factor will almost always favor the defendant, the exception being where there are multiple defendants and the objecting defendant will arguably have to appear and testify as a material witness in any event. Where the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state, the second and third of these factors will weigh in the plaintiff’s favor. Under the single publication rule, a forum state typically will be found to have an interest in securing the most effective (and efficient) resolution of the controversy in a unitary proceeding. This leaves social policy, which may not be particularly relevant to a private defamation action, especially given that First Amendment concerns are generally not part of jurisdictional analysis. Calder, 465 U.S. at 790.•

__________

John Twohy is a partner in the Hammond office of Eichhorn & Eichhorn and is a member of the DTCI Board of Directors. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT