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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT