United States' and Australian principles on internet jurisdiction: A case for Australia to consider United States' hegemony on jurisdiction

Abstract

The United States and Australia have been facing the issue of internet jurisdiction. The United States is an epitome of a country that has considered the challenges posed by the internet to the traditional law. It has developed its own tests to help resolve the issue, which have evolved over time and in comparison with other jurisdictions, and it has been successful. Conversely, the Australian legal system is in a stage of infancy regarding such challenges and has developed its own approach. This paper focuses on the anomalies between the United States' and Australian principles or approaches to internet jurisdiction by analysing and discussing the three leading cases that are benchmarks in the respective jurisdictions. Finding the fundamental difference between the two approaches, the paper elucidates the United States hegemony on internet jurisdiction by comparing the shortcomings of the respective cases. Finally, this paper makes a case for the Australian courts to consider an approach based on the one practised by the United States courts to tackle the ever-evolving issue of internet jurisdiction.

Keywords:

• internet jurisdiction
• challenges
• United States and Australia

Notes

Meehan, K. 2008. The continuing conundrum of international internet jurisdiction. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 31: 345–346.

233 F.Supp.2d 404, (N.D.N.Y. 2002).

Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 US 783.

Ibid., 783–785.

Ibid., 789, 90.

Ibid.,788–91.

326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977).

Wang, F.F. 2008. Obstacles and solutions to internet jurisdiction a comparative analysis of the EU and US laws. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 3, no. 4: 233, 238.

Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082,1087 (9th Cir.2000).

Id.

Geist, Michael. 2001. Internet Law in Canada, 2nd edn, 69. North York: Captus Press.

ALS Scan Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293F. 3d 707, 714 (4th Cir.2002).

952 F.Supp.1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

Fitzgerald, Brian, Fitzgerald, Anne, Middleton, Gaye, Beale, Timothy, Lim Yee, Fen. 2007. Internet and E-Commerce Law: Technology, Law and Policy, 49. Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.

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

Ibid., 1124.

Winn, Jane, and Wright, Benjamin. 2001. The law of electronic commerce, 4th edn, 16. New York: Aspen Publishers.

Zippo note 16, 1124.

Idem.

Zippo note 16, 1126–27.

Zippo note 16, 1124.

89 F.2d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996).

937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

947 F. Supp.1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

Dow Jones v. Gutnick (2002) HCA 56.

Saadat, M. 2005. Jurisdiction and the internet after Gutnick and Yahoo!. Journal of Information, Law and Technology 1. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2005_1/saadat

Dow Jones note 26, para 1.

Idem.

Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. (1990) 97 CLR 124.

Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co, Inc. (2001) VSA 305, para 60.

Fitzgerald note 15, 49.

Dow Jones note 26, para 118.

Ibid., para 152.

233 F.Supp.2d 404 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).

Ibid., 408.

Ibid., 417.

Ibid., 415.

499 U.S. 585 (1991).

315 F 3d 256 (4th Cir.2002).

Ibid., 262–263.

293 F 3d 707 (4th Cir.2002).

293 F 3d 707 (4th Cir.2002).

Griffis v. Luban, 646 NW 2d 527, 535-7 (Minn. 2002).

Fitzgerald, note 15,611.

United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d 610, 624 (1st Cir. 2001).

Boone, B. 2006. Bullseye!: why a ‘targeting’ approach to personal jurisdiction in e-commerce context makes sense internationally. Emory International Law Review 20, 261.

Hestermeyer, H. 2005. Personal jurisdiction for internet tort. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 26, 286.

Recent Cases. 2005. Civil procedure – personal jurisdiction – ninth circuit requires intentional, wrongful conduct to satisfy the Calder effects test – Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l' Antisemitisme. Harvard Law Review 118, 1363.

Matwyshyn, A. 2004. Of nodes and power laws: a network theory approach to internet jurisdiction through data privacy. Northwestern University Law Review 98, 496.

Geist, M. 2001. Is there a there there? Toward greater certainty for internet jurisdiction. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 16, 1379–1406.

Ibid., 1379–1380.

Rice, D., and Gladstone, J. 2003. An assessment of the effects test in determining personal jurisdiction in cyberspace. Business Lawyer 58, 652.

Matwyshyn, note 50, 509.

(2002) HCA 56.

Fitzgerald, note 15, 604.

Dow Jones, note 26, para 152.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc v. Gutnick (2002)194 ALR 433, 475.

Fitzgerald, note 15, 608.

Saadat, note 27.

Bone, S. 2005. Private harms in the cyber-world: the conundrum of choice of law for defamation posed by Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co. Washington and Lee Law Review 62, no. 1: 314.

Robilliard, B. 2007. Jurisdiction and choice of law rules for defamation actions in Australia following the Gutnick case and the Uniform Defamation Legislation. Australian International Law Journal 14, 198.

Geist, note 51, 1380; Hestermeyer, note 48, 286.

Wang, note 9, 240.

Aciman, C., and Vo-Verde, D. 2002. Refining the Zippo test: new trends on personal jurisdiction for internet activities. Computer and Internet Law 19, 16.

Boone, note 47, 266.

(1984) 465 US 783.

326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977).

Idem.

ALS Scan Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293F. 3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002).

952 F.Supp.1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

Zippo note 16.

Ibid., 1124.

Ibid., 1124.

Dow Jones note 26.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Saadat, note 27.