Emma M. Bjeldanes
94 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 451
The current approach used by district and circuit courts to test personal jurisdiction in internet data extraction cases has made it increasingly difficult—and sometimes impossible—for plaintiffs to sue companies that collect and exploit their personal data without their knowledge. Lower courts’ interpretations of the Supreme Court’s precedent on specific personal jurisdiction have resulted in situations where no state is able to assert specific jurisdiction over these claims. In cases involving foreign companies, who are not “at home” anywhere in the United States, as defendants, general jurisdiction is also unavailable, leaving plaintiffs with no avenue for relief when their privacy is violated. This issue has become more prevalent with the rise of cases involving “session replay” code, an internet data-tracking software that frequently violates state privacy and wiretapping statutes.
This Note proposes that courts should evaluate whether specific personal jurisdiction is proper in data extraction cases using environmental pollution cases as a template. By analogizing to a more common, less technologically complicated cause of action, courts will better understand when their exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant is fair and comports with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
