## Facts

- ALS Scan, Inc., a Maryland corporation, created and marketed adult photographs distributed online.
- ALS Scan alleged that Alternative Products, Inc. copied hundreds of its copyrighted photographs and displayed them on two websites, earning revenue through ads and membership fees.
- Digital Service Consultants, Inc., a Georgia corporation, provided bandwidth/ISP services that enabled Alternative Products’ websites to operate.
- Digital had no offices, employees, bank accounts, or targeted advertising in Maryland, and its alleged involvement was limited to providing ISP services to an out-of-state customer.
- ALS Scan asserted that defendants infringed its copyrights “within Maryland and elsewhere” because the websites were accessible in Maryland.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland courts could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a Georgia-based ISP based solely on hosting a third-party website accessible in Maryland that allegedly infringed a Maryland corporation’s copyrights.
2. Whether Internet accessibility in the forum, without forum-directed conduct, satisfies due process minimum-contacts requirements for specific jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
- The court held due process permits specific jurisdiction in an Internet case only when the defendant (1) directs electronic activity into the forum state, (2) with manifested intent to engage in business or other interactions there, and (3) the activity creates a potential cause of action in the forum.
- Digital’s provision of generic ISP/bandwidth services to an out-of-state customer did not constitute electronic activity directed into Maryland or intent to interact with Maryland residents.
- The court rejected a rule under which a defendant could be sued anywhere a hosted website is accessible, reasoning it would eliminate constitutional limits on state judicial power.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction requires minimum contacts showing the defendant purposefully directed conduct at the forum, consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- In Internet-related cases, “merely placing information on the Internet” (or enabling access to it) does not, by itself, create personal jurisdiction in every state where the content can be accessed.
- A forum may exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant for online conduct only if the defendant directs electronic activity into the state, intends to engage in interactions there, and that activity gives rise to the plaintiff’s claim.
- An ISP’s passive role in providing general hosting/bandwidth services, without targeting the forum, is insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Maryland lacked specific personal jurisdiction over a Georgia ISP where the ISP’s only alleged connection to Maryland was providing bandwidth services for a third party’s website accessible in Maryland; due process required forum-directed electronic activity and intent to interact in the forum, not mere Internet accessibility.


ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digit. Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002)