Whether a plaintiff may establish specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant based on its forum-agnostic 'business model,' or whether the plaintiff must allege that the defendant undertook specific, claim-related activities in or directed at the forum

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant unless that defendant has, among other things, sufficient “minimum contacts” with the fo rum that relate to the plaintiff’s claims. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316-17 (1945). Despit e the central role that Internet-based businesses play in our economy, the Court has not addressed “whether and how a defendant’s virtual ‘presence’ and conduct translate into ‘contacts’ with a particular State.” Walden v. Fiore , 571 U.S. 277, 290 n. 9 (2014). The Vermont Supreme Court held that Petitioners were subject to personal jurisdiction in Vermont based on their purported “business model”— i.e., generating revenue by selling online advertising space to third parties—even though this suit does not involve any claims based on that third-party advertising. That ruling deepens an existing split on whether a plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in specific, claim-related activities th at establish purposeful availment of the forum or may bypass that test and establish personal jurisdiction based on allegations regarding the defendant’s “business model.” The question presented is whether a plaintiff may establish specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant based on its forum-agnostic “business model,” or whether the plaintiff must allege that the defend-ant undertook specific, claim-related activities in or directed at the forum.