Whether the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over an internet-based company requires a direct causal connection between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's claims

No question identified. : of-state defendants operate an internet-based application with no physical presence in the forum”). In the absence of guidance from this Court, lower courts have reached conflicting decisions on whether and when they can exercise personal jurisdiction based on Internet-based contacts. 3. In this case, Respondent State of Vermont (“State”) broadly alleges that “Meta intentionally designed Instagram to be addictive to teens.” Ex. 1 § 3. The State asserted two claims against Meta under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act in Vermont state court, alleging that Instagram’s “design” constitutes an unfair business practice and that Meta deceived consumers by making material misrepresentations and omissions about Instagram’s safety. As to the unfairness claim, the State broadly alleges that the ways Instagram selects, organizes, and displays third-party content to users causes teens to use Instagram excessively. As to the deceptive practices claim, the State alleges that Meta and its employees made material misrepresentations or omissions to Congress and the news media regarding Instagram’s safety and the content available on Instagram. Meta moved to dismiss the complaint on numerous grounds, including that the Vermont court lacked jurisdiction over the State’s claims. The State has conceded that the court lacked general jurisdiction over Meta. Ex. 1 § 14. For good reason: Meta has neither its headquarters nor its principal place of business in Vermont. Meta argued that specific jurisdiction was also lacking for the State’s claims. Although the State challenges Instagram’s “design,” the State neither alleges that Instagram was “designed” in Vermont, nor that any of the individual “design features” it alleges are unfair were created in Vermont. And although the State’s Complaint faults Meta for certain alleged misrepresentations, the State does not allege any of those statements were made in Vermont or were directed at a Vermontspecific audience. Nevertheless, the trial court denied Meta’s motion to dismiss for, among other reasons, lack of personal jurisdiction. Meta sought and obtained the trial court’s permission to file an interlocutory appeal on its personal jurisdiction ruling to the Vermont Supreme Court. 4. The Vermont Supreme Court accepted interlocutory review of the personal jurisdiction ruling and affirmed the trial court’s order. In short, the Vermont Supreme Court held that it could exercise jurisdiction over Meta based on Instagram’s accessibility in Vermont and Meta’s so-called “business model,” stating “{a] company that reaches out and purposefully avails itself of a forum state’s market for its own economic gain can expect to be haled into court in that jurisdiction to account for its conduct related to those business activities. ... that company cannot avoid jurisdiction in one state just because it avails itself of another, or many others, in the same way.” Ex. 1 { 48. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Meta had purposefully availed itself of Vermont because Vermonters use Instagram and Vermont-based businesses chose to advertise on Instagram. Ex. 1 { 20. As to the unfairness claim, the Vermont Supreme Court reasoned that it did not matter that “users initiate a relationship” with Meta or that “Meta does not control the user’s choice to sign-up” because Meta allegedly made a “deliberate choice to direct[] its business at and solicit engagement from Vermont consumers and businesses.” Ex. 1 § 30. As to the deception claim, the Vermont Supreme Court reasoned that it was inconsequential that Meta’s alleged misrepresentations were neither stated in nor directed at Vermont because it was sufficient that “Meta has created a Vermont market for [Instagram] and thus can fairly expect that the potential users of the application will rely on those representations in deciding whether to download and use it.” Ex. 1 33. Conflating purposeful direction and relatedness, the Vermont Supreme Court held