## Facts

- Jahmel Binion, a Michigan resident, has ectodermal dysplasia, a condition that affects appearance.
- Binion maintained a public Instagram account and posted photographs of himself that were viewable by Instagram users generally.
- Shaquille O’Neal, a former professional basketball player residing outside Michigan (with residences in Florida and Massachusetts), obtained one of Binion’s photos from Instagram.
- O’Neal posted Binion’s photo on his Instagram and Twitter accounts alongside a photo of O’Neal contorting his face in a way Binion alleged mocked Binion’s appearance.
- Binion sued O’Neal and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and negligence based on the social-media postings.
- O’Neal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing the Michigan federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because the posts were made outside Michigan and were not directed to Michigan.
- In opposing dismissal, Binion offered evidence that O’Neal had business connections to Michigan, including ownership interests in restaurants in Michigan and involvement with comedy shows at Michigan venues.
- The order addressed only O’Neal’s motion and did not resolve the merits of Binion’s tort claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a Michigan federal court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Shaquille O’Neal based on allegedly tortious Instagram and Twitter posts about a Michigan resident when the posts were made outside Michigan and were generally accessible online.
2. Whether the alleged in-forum effects (harm felt by a Michigan resident) and O’Neal’s alleged awareness of Binion’s Michigan residence satisfy purposeful availment under the intentional-tort “effects” theory.
3. Whether O’Neal’s alleged Michigan business activities can support specific personal jurisdiction when the claims arise from the out-of-state social-media postings rather than those Michigan activities.

## Decision

- The court granted O’Neal’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion and dismissed him from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that posting the image on broadly accessible social-media platforms did not show that O’Neal purposefully directed conduct at Michigan or purposefully availed himself of acting in Michigan.
- The court concluded that Binion’s claims did not arise from O’Neal’s alleged Michigan restaurant and entertainment-related activities because the complained-of conduct was the social-media posting made outside the state.

## Legal Principles

- In a federal diversity case, personal jurisdiction must be authorized by the forum state’s long-arm statute and must satisfy federal due process; Michigan’s long-arm statute is read to extend to the limits of due process, so the analysis centers on minimum contacts and fairness.
- Specific personal jurisdiction generally requires: (1) purposeful availment or purposeful direction toward the forum, (2) a cause of action arising from the defendant’s forum-related contacts, and (3) a substantial enough connection to make exercising jurisdiction reasonable.
- For intentional torts, the “effects” theory requires more than the plaintiff’s in-forum injury; the defendant’s conduct must be expressly aimed at the forum state, not merely accessible there or harmful there because the plaintiff resides there.
- A public internet presence or social-media posting that can be viewed anywhere does not, by itself, create personal jurisdiction in every state where the content is accessible.
- Forum contacts that are unrelated to the challenged conduct do not establish specific jurisdiction for claims that do not arise from those contacts.

## Conclusion

The Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Shaquille O’Neal for lack of personal jurisdiction because his alleged Instagram and Twitter posts mocking a Michigan resident were made outside Michigan and were not aimed at Michigan as a forum, and the plaintiff’s reliance on O’Neal’s separate Michigan business interests did not satisfy the “arising from” requirement for specific jurisdiction.


Binion v. O'Neal, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (2015)