What You'll Learn

  • Contracts under Burger King
  • Intentional torts under Calder and Walden
  • Internet contacts and the Zippo heuristic
  • Comparison chart
  • A combined hypothetical
  • Exam writing

Educational information only; not legal advice. This article is a general study aid and should be checked against current authority and course materials.

The words “purposeful availment” are easy to memorize and hard to apply. The relevant facts depend on the type of conduct. A contract dispute asks whether the defendant deliberately formed a continuing forum relationship. An intentional tort asks whether conduct was aimed at the forum. An internet case asks whether online activity actually targeted or transacted with the forum rather than merely being accessible there.

1. Contracts: More Than a Signature

A contract with a forum resident does not automatically create jurisdiction. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz directs courts to evaluate the parties’ prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, contract terms, choice-of-law provisions, and actual course of dealing.

The franchise relationship in Burger King involved long-term obligations to a Florida-based enterprise, payments sent to Florida, extensive communications, and deliberate affiliation with the forum. Physical presence was not required.

Checklist

Ask who initiated the relationship, where negotiations were directed, how long the obligations would continue, where performance and payments were centered, what law the contract selected, and how the parties actually dealt with each other. A choice-of-law clause supports deliberate affiliation but is not the same as a forum-selection clause. The former selects governing law; the latter selects the place for litigation and can operate as consent.

2. Intentional Torts: The Effects Test

In Calder v. Jones, Florida defendants were subject to California jurisdiction for an allegedly defamatory article focused on a California resident, drawing on California sources, and causing the focal injury there. The shorthand “effects test” asks whether the defendant committed an intentional act, expressly aimed it at the forum, and knew the brunt of the harm would be felt there.

Walden v. Fiore supplies an important limit. The defendant must create contacts with the forum itself, not merely with a plaintiff who happens to reside there. Knowledge of the plaintiff’s connections is relevant, but the plaintiff cannot be the only link.

Common Mistake

Do not write “harm was felt in the forum, therefore jurisdiction.” Identify how the defendant targeted the forum, its audience, institutions, market, or conduct within the state.

3. Internet Cases: Accessibility Is Not Targeting

The Supreme Court has not adopted a single universal internet-jurisdiction test. Many lower courts have used the Zippo sliding scale as a heuristic:

Website activity Typical inference What still matters

Active commercial transactions with forum users Strong evidence of purposeful availment. Volume, targeting, delivery, contracts, and claim connection.

Interactive exchange Fact-dependent. Level of interactivity and commercial or forum-directed nature.

Passive information available everywhere Usually weak by itself. Whether content targeted the forum or produced forum-specific injury through deliberate conduct.

Modern analysis should not stop at labels. A highly interactive site may have no meaningful relationship with a particular state, while a simple page designed to solicit customers in one state may be strongly targeted. The central constitutional question remains the defendant’s deliberate forum relationship.

4. Compare the Fact Patterns

Contract

Continuing obligations, negotiations, payments, performance, choice of law, and course of dealing.

Intentional Tort

Express aiming, focal point of conduct, intended audience, sources, and known location of the targeted effects.

Internet

Actual forum users, sales, subscriptions, shipping, data exchange, state-specific content, and deliberate audience targeting.

5. Combined Hypothetical

Key Takeaway

A Maine fitness creator sells paid coaching subscriptions nationwide. The creator buys state-specific ads in Vermont, enrolls 600 Vermont subscribers, and sends them Vermont-event promotions. During a contract dispute, the creator posts a false accusation about a Vermont gym and encourages Vermont subscribers to cancel their memberships. Contract claim: Vermont-directed ads, recurring subscriptions, and ongoing service obligations support purposeful availment. The specific contract must still be tied to those Vermont activities. Defamation or business-tort claim: the post identified a Vermont business and was deliberately distributed to a Vermont audience. That is stronger than merely knowing the owner resides in Vermont. Website fact: the site’s nationwide accessibility adds little. The forum-specific advertising, subscribers, and communications do the constitutional work.

6. How to Write the Analysis

  1. Classify the conduct: contract, intentional tort, internet commerce, or a combination. 2. List only defendant-created forum contacts. 3. Explain why each contact is deliberate rather than random. 4. Tie the particular claim to those contacts. 5. Address fairness after the contact and relatedness thresholds.

Key Takeaway

The fact that online content was viewable in the forum is not enough by itself; the stronger question is whether the defendant cultivated forum users, transacted with them, or aimed the challenged conduct at the forum.

Primary Authorities

  • Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).

  • Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).

  • Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014).

  • Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

Exam-ready conclusion

Purposeful availment is context-specific but principle-driven. Look past physical presence and website labels. Identify the deliberate relationship the defendant chose to form with the forum and explain how the claim grows from that relationship.