The IT Law Wiki


The second part of the effects test requires that the defendant's conduct be expressly aimed at the forum.[1] "'[S]omething more' than mere foreseeability [is required] in order to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction,"[2] and that “something more” means conduct expressly aimed at the forum.[3]


The maintenance of a passive website alone cannot satisfy the express aiming prong.[4] It is equally clear, however, that “operating even a passive website in conjunction with ‘something more’ — conduct directly targeting the forum — is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.”[5] Regardless of whether a case involves the Internet, the question remains whether the defendant's conduct was expressly aimed at the forum.

"Express aiming is a concept that in the jurisdictional context hardly defines itself."[6] This much, however, is clear: “the [express aiming] requirement is satisfied when the defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.”[7]


  1. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006) (full-text).
  2. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 805 (9th Cir. 2004) (full-text).
  3. See Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1156 (“We now conclude that ‘something more’ is what the Supreme Court described as ‘express aiming’ at the forum state.”).
  4. See Holland America Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. America, Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th Cir. 2007)(full-text)(“We consistently have held that a mere web presence is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”); Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1158 (“[W]e reject . . . any contention that a passive website constitutes express[ ] aiming.”).
  5. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002)(full-text).
  6. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000)(full-text).
  7. Id.