Pavlovich v. Superior Court

California's long-arm statute reaches as far as the state and federal Constitutions permit. Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant purposefully avail himself of, or purposefully direct conduct toward, the forum; that the controversy arise from or relate to those contacts; and that jurisdiction be reasonable. The purposeful-availment requirement protects a defendant from being sued based on random, fortuitous, attenuated, or third-party-created contacts.

In intentional-tort cases, Calder v. Jones supplies an effects test. It requires more than foreseeable injury in the forum. The plaintiff must show intentional conduct expressly aimed at, or intentionally targeted toward, the forum state, along with knowledge that the brunt of the harm would likely be felt there. Otherwise, foreseeable effects alone would improperly replace the defendant-focused minimum-contacts inquiry.

DVD CCA had the initial burden to establish facts supporting jurisdiction. The undisputed record showed no California business, property, residence, solicitation, or other direct contact by Pavlovich or his company. Because the only asserted connection was the website posting and its possible effects, DVD CCA had to show that the posting was specifically aimed at California; it did not do so.

Because DVD CCA failed at the purposeful-availment stage, the Court did not need to decide whether the claim sufficiently arose from California contacts or whether jurisdiction would be reasonable. DVD CCA remained free to pursue Pavlovich in a forum with a genuine connection to him, such as Indiana or Texas.

The Court adopted the prevailing Internet-jurisdiction framework distinguishing active commercial sites, interactive sites, and passive informational sites. A defendant that knowingly and repeatedly contracts with forum residents over the Internet may be subject to jurisdiction, while jurisdiction over an interactive site depends on the degree of interactivity and commercial exchange. At the other end of the spectrum, a site that merely makes information available is ordinarily insufficient.

LiVid's site fell at the passive end of that spectrum. It did not solicit or transact business, allow users to exchange information with its operators, or otherwise target California. The record did not even show that a California resident visited the site or downloaded DeCSS from it.

Treating worldwide Internet accessibility as forum-directed conduct would make website operators subject to suit nearly everywhere. Creating a site may have nationwide or worldwide effects, but without additional conduct connecting the defendant to a particular state, it is not an act purposefully directed toward that state.

Pavlovich's awareness that a licensing entity existed did not establish that he aimed conduct at DVD CCA in California. When DeCSS was first posted in October 1999, he did not know that DVD CCA was the CSS licensor or that it had its principal place of business in California. Indeed, DVD CCA did not begin administering CSS licenses until approximately two months later.

The possible harm to the motion-picture industry also could not supply the missing California contact. DVD CCA's trade-secret claim was not based on Pavlovich's own piracy of copyrighted movies. Any future piracy by third parties who obtained DeCSS would be their unilateral conduct, and the record contained no evidence that Pavlovich encouraged site visitors to use DeCSS for illegal copying.

The asserted impact on California computer and consumer-electronics companies was even more attenuated. At most, Pavlovich should have guessed that some CSS licensees might be located in California because California contains many technology companies. But the foreseeability that a tort may affect an industry located in a state is not the same as conduct deliberately aimed at that state.

The Court emphasized that industry-wide effects can be relevant evidence when combined with other signs that a defendant targeted the forum. They cannot, standing alone, establish purposeful availment. A contrary rule would allow California jurisdiction over virtually any intentional tortfeasor whose conduct might affect industries concentrated in California, contrary to the due-process limits recognized in Burger King and World-Wide Volkswagen.