MBE Rules · Civil Procedure
Internet and Effects Jurisdiction
Zippo / Calder effects test
The rule
Purposeful direction supports specific jurisdiction over out-of-state online conduct when the defendant expressly aims at the forum knowing harm will be felt there; mere website accessibility is insufficient.
In plain English
Internet and effects jurisdiction allows a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if they purposefully directed their actions toward the forum state, knowing that harm would occur there. Simply having a website that is accessible from the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction; there must be a clear intention to target that state.
Worked example
A New York resident is harmed by a product sold online by a California company that specifically marketed its products to New York consumers through targeted ads and promotions. The New York court finds that the California company purposefully directed its activities at New York, establishing jurisdiction. Therefore, the court can hear the case.
Memory hook
Aim at the forum, not just the web—purposeful direction is key!
The trap
Exams often present scenarios where a defendant has a passive website, leading students to mistakenly conclude that jurisdiction exists based solely on accessibility. It's crucial to identify whether there was intentional targeting of the forum state.
How examiners test it
Questions typically involve fact patterns where a defendant's online conduct is analyzed to determine if it constitutes purposeful direction toward the forum state, often contrasting passive and active online engagement.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.