Whether internet commerce determines personal jurisdiction of foreign corporations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Internet reservations are the lifeblood of the hospitality industry. Like many global businesses that heavily rely upon the internet to conduct business, respondents have elected to avail themselves of the commercial benefits that are available in every state in this country. This Court has never directly addressed what role internet commerce plays in determining the personal jurisdiction of foreign corporations with a global reach, stating not long ago that “[w]e leave questions about virtual contacts for another day.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 290 n.9 (2014). Recently, in Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), three Justices signaled that the day has come, questioning the continued effectiveness of the distinction between general and specific personal jurisdiction developed in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny. As Justice Alito stated “there are [] reasons to wonder whether the case law we have developed since [International Shoe] is well suited for the way in which business is now conducted.” Ford Motor Co., 141 8. Ct. at 1032 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment). Justice Gorsuch also questioned the continuing validity of this distinction, asserting that it “ha[s] begun to look a little battered.” Id. at 1034 (Gorsuch, J., with whom Thomas, J., joined, concurring in the judgment). Alternatively, should this Court not address the continued viability of International Shoe in the context of internet commerce, it should grant certiorari and remand this matter in light of Ford Motor Co. The questions presented are: 1. Whether it is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a state to u exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on its virtual contacts with that state. 2. Where the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that defendants were not subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the absence of a “but for” causal relationship between defendants’ contacts with New Jersey and plaintiff’s injuries, whether this Court should grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the New Jersey Appellate Division, and remand the case in light of its recent decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Fighth Judicial Dist., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1026 (2021), where it ruled that “(njone of our precedents has suggested that only a strict causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation will do.”