A foreign state can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident for non-forum related activities when the individual or business has engaged in “systematic and continuous” activities in the forum state. This type of jurisdiction is known as general jurisdiction and can be exercised when a company does targeted business in a state, such as by opening a store or sending employees to make sales or perform services. A foreign state can exercise specific jurisdiction, however, when an entity’s activity within the state create sufficient “minimum contacts” with the state. Specific jurisdiction is what is invoked when a state exercises jurisdcition based on a website.

To satisfy the “minimum contacts” requirement, websites are divided into 3 categories:

Commercial Websites – which do a substantial volume of business over the internet, and through which customers in any location can immediately engage in business with the business owner;

Interactive Websites – which merely provide information, will almost never provide sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction. Such a website will only provide a basis for jurisdiction if there is an intentional tort such as defamation on the website, and if it is directed at the jurisdiction in question

Passive Websites – which permit the exchange of information between the website owner and visitors, may be subject to jurisdiction, depending on the website’s level of interactivity and commerciality, and the amount of contacts which the website owner has developed with the forum due to the availability of the website within the jurisdiction.

If you’re not sure which category your website falls into it may be time to consult with a local internet and e-commerce attorney.. For a quick and easy answer, the Minnesota District Court poses this question, is your website more of “less sophisticated than a typical teenager’s Facebook page”? If it is less sophisticated then chances are you are not subjecting yourself, or your company, to foreign jurisdiction.

For a defamation cause of action to be successful one must prove a statement injured that person’s reputation in their community, that the statement was published (that is someone other than the two heard and understood the defamatory statement), and that the statement about the defamed person was untrue. Defamation per se occurs when one defames another based on one of the following, allegations of “loathsome diseases” (leprosy, sexually transmitted diseases, and in some courts, mental illness), injurious statements about the person’s unchastity or promiscuity, allegations of criminal activity or injurious statements of one’s conduct in their profession, business or trade. In per se violations, the injured party need not prove injury, only that the statement was made, that it was untrue and it was published to another.

Now, with that background, comes this gem from the internet. Levinson Axelrod Sucks (http://levinsonaxelrod.net/) is a blog about the law firm Levinson Axelrod based in the East Coast. It is written by a former associate of the firm who is dissatisfied with his treatment in that firm. As a lawyer, I would have thought he would be a bit more cautious with his words, especially in the name of the url. But this angry former employee has decided to throw caution to the wind and let lose his pen (well keyboard in this case) against his former employers. Edward Harrington Heyburn, the owner of the blog and former associate has accused his former firm of being a “fraud”, Richard Levinson of being a “hypocrite”, as well as several other choice words for former coworkers and employers.

Levinson Axelrod is reportedly considering legal action, which isn’t surprising considering they are a law firm, after all. Among them, trademark infringement and cyber squatting (as the url name would suggest) as well as defamation. No doubt the firm will try to apply a defamation per se argument, that they need not prove actual harm but that the injurious statements of the business (if it is concluded as such) would constitute a per se injury.

Heyburn has offered to take a lie detector test, perhaps to provide for a truth defense. For many, the internet is a wild west where anonymity protects our actions. Though this particular man has decided not to remain anonymous, his actions (and the resulting consequences) may serve as a reminder that what we say online has real legal repercussions.

For more reading on the subject of Blogs and defamation, please see

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation