The rule of law, jurisdiction and the internet

International Journal of Law and Information Technology

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 365-376

  Kohl, Uta ^a  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645549604     PISSN: 09670769     EISSN: 14643693     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijlit/12.3.365     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. David R Johnson and David Post, 'Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace (1996) 48 Stanford Law Review 1357.
2. Ibid 1379.
3. Ibid 1370.
4. Ibid 1379, fn 33.
5. [2002] HCA 56, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au.
6. For example McDonough v Fallon McElligott Inc 40 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1826, 1829 (SD Cal 1996) where the Court stated:
7. 'Because the Web enables easy world-wide access, allowing computer interaction via the web to supply sufficient contacts to establish jurisdiction would eviscerate the personal jurisdiction requirement as it currently exists', recently affirmed in ALS Scan Inc v Digital Services Consultants Inc (4th Cir No 01-1812, 14 June 2002).
8. In rare instances it would also be logically impossible for content providers to comply with the laws of two or more States.
9. Joseph Raz, The Rule of Law and its Virtue' (1977) 93 Law Quarterly Review 195, 196.
10. Ibid. 198.
11. Ibid. 198f.
12. Ibid 204.
13. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York, Basic Books, 1999) 98.
14. Ibid 99.
15. Eg. Zippo Manufacturing Co v Zippo Dot Com Inc 952 F Supp 1119 (WD Pa 1997)
16. American Network Inc v Access America/Connect Atlanta Inc 975 F Supp 494 (SDNY 1997)
17. Thompson v Handa-Lopez 998 F Supp 738 (WD Rex 1998).
18. International Chamber of Commerce, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Electronic Commerce (6 June 2001) at http://www.iccwbo.org/, where it is stated that in future customers may increasingly 'purchase goods or services that are digitally transmitted, and pay with digital cash or any other payment mechanism that does not identify the purchaser.'
19. John Rothchild, 'Protecting the Digital Consumer: The Limits of Cyberspace Utopianism' (1999) 74 Indiana Law Journal 895, 930ff;
20. Michael Geist, 'Is There a There There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction' (2001) 661 PLI/Pat 561, 612f.
21. [2000] ETMR 1025.
22. [2000] ETMR 1025, 1031 (emphasis added). 800-Flowers Trade Mark [2000] FSR 697, 705.
23. For an overview of available measures see Geist, above n 16, 609ff.
24. Rothchild, above n 16, 940.
25. Eg. Australia: Macquarie Bank v Berg [1999] NSWSC 526.
26. Cf Tech Head Inc v Desktop Service Center Inc 105 F Supp 2d 1142, 1152 (D Ore 2000) where the court noted that the use of a disclaimer that the website operator will not sell products or provide services outside a certain state may limit operator's exposure to foreign laws.
27. 96 F Supp 2d 824 (ND Ill 2000).
28. Graham Smith (ed), Internet Law and Regulation (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) 353.
29. Note that the foreign defendant only added the statement 'Goods Sold Only in the Republic of Ireland' after the suit was filed in the US: Euromarket Designs Inc v Crate & Barrel Ltd 96 F Supp 2d 824, 829 (ND Ill 2000).
30. Geist, above n 16, 568.
31. In US v Aluminium Company of America and others 148 F 2d 416, 443 (1945) (the Alcoa case) this expansion was justified by the following and later much disputed statement: '[I]t is settled law... that any state may impose liabilities, even upon persons not within its allegiance, for conduct outside its borders that has consequences within its borders which the state reprehends...'.
32. US v Aluminium Company of America and others 148 F 2d 416, 444 (1945).
33. A V Lowe (ed), Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Cambridge: Grotius Publications Limited, 1983) 3.
34. This test was introduced by Timberlane Lumber Co v Bank of America 549 F 2d 597, 614-15 (1976) and required the court to also take into account in deciding jurisdiction a number of factors, including'... the extent to which there is explicit purpose to harm or affect American commerce, the foreseeability of such effect'; followed in Mannington Mills v Congoleum Core 595 F 2d 1287, 1294ff (1979) and reflected in s.402) (1) (c) and 403(2) (a) and (d) of US Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law (1986).
35. Hartford Fire Ins Co v California 509 US 764 (1993).
36. 22 May 2000 (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris), at http://www.gyoza.com/lapres/html/yahen.html.
37. 20 Nov 2000 (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) at http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001120.pdf & http://www.gigalaw.com/library/france-yahoo-2000-11-20-lapres.html, 5.
38. 20 Nov 2000 (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) at http://www.gigalaw.com/library/france-yahoo-2000-11-20-lapres.html, 19.
39. 26 Feb 2002 (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) No 0104305259, at http://www.foruminternet.org/telechargement/documents/tgi-par2002/ 0226.pdf.
40. Ibid 10.
41. In this case, this was the real capability of the online material to disturb the public peace in Germany: BGH, Urt. v 12.12.2000 - 1 StR 184/ 00 (LG Mannheim), reproduced in (2001) 8 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 624, 626f.
42. Discussed in Uta Kohl, 'Eggs, jurisdiction and the internet', International and Comparative Law Quarterly 51, 2002, 555.
43. Ibid 627.
44. (1999) NYS 2d 884, 851.
45. But note that at times even in private law claims very broad regulatory claims have been upheld. See for example, Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 39, where the Australian High Court stated that 'those who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available to all and sundry without any geographic restrictions.'