Authorities Concerning Procedural and Jurisdictional Issues

New technologies have created new difficulties in applying traditional analyses of procedural and jurisdictional questions in cases involving on-line disputes. To illustrate:

A. Artificial Intelligence Corp. v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., No. 93/115875 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993).

In a suit against the Dow Jones News Retrieval Service, defendants moved for dismissal on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Arguing that it was not a "publisher" but, in essence, an electronic archive, Dow Jones asserted that the statute of limitations should run from the date of initial publication in the underlying newspaper, or, in the alternative, from the date on which the article was first distributed on-line.

B. Software Incorporated v. Reliability Research, Inc.,

631 F. Supp. 1356 (C.D. Cal. 1986).

A Nevada computer bulletin board operator was held subject to jurisdiction in California because allegedly defamatory messages posted on the board could be accessed in the latter state. However, the case also discusses other contacts between defendant and California that contributed to finding jurisdiction there. The court stated: "Through the use of computers, corporations can now transact business and communicate with individuals in several states simultaneously . . . . [W]hile modern technology has made nationwide commercial transactions simpler and more feasible, even for small businesses, it must broaden correspondingly the permissible scope of jurisdiction exercisable by the courts.

C. Godfrey v. Halam-Baker, reported in The Financial Times, Saturday, August 13, 1994.

In this case, British physicist Laurence Godfrey sued fellow physicist Philip Halam-Baker for defamatory statements allegedly transmitted via the Internet from Germany and Switzerland, and read by colleagues of Godfrey in Britain. The case settled out of court in early 1995, leaving the novel jurisdictional and choice of law questions unresolved.

For a discussion of choice of law and choice of forum issues relating to computer information services, see:

John D. Faucher, Let the Chips Fall Where They May: Choice of Law in Computer Bulletin Board Defamation Cases, 26 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 1045 (1993).

LINKS:

Non-Defamation Cases Relevant to the Standard of Care

Basic Elements of a Cause of Action for Defamation

The Standard of Care for Electronic Information Providers

Articles Concerning the Standard of Care for Defamation Generally

Legislative Initiatives Relating to the Standard of Care Issue

Procedural and Jurisdictional Issues