ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an Internet service provider did not subject itself to personal jurisdiction by providing the bandwidth that enabled a website owner to publish allegedly infringing photographs on the Internet
• noting that personal jurisdiction requires “purposeful availment,” that is, “purposeful conduct directed at the State.”
• stating the principle that there is no personal jurisdiction on the basis of purely passive Web sites
• finding no jurisdiction in Maryland because a defendant did not transmit materials on the internet with the intent of engaging in business transactions with Maryland residents
• finding no personal jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to show defendant’s knowing transmission of infringing material specifically to the forum State “with the intent of engaging in business or any other transaction in” the forum State
• “This standard for reconciling contacts through electronic media with standard due process principles is not dissimilar to that applied by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, [465 U.S. 783 (1984

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).