## Facts

- GTE New Media Services Inc. operated “SuperPages,” an Internet business-directory service.
- GTE had a relationship with Netscape under which SuperPages appeared through toolbar/menu links, including links on a Yahoo-managed site.
- In July 1997, Netscape removed links to SuperPages; GTE alleged regional Bell operating companies conspired with Netscape and Yahoo to route portal links exclusively to defendants’ competing Internet Yellow Pages services.
- GTE sued multiple Bell-related entities for alleged violations of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2, claiming harm to its Internet directory business.
- Defendants had no offices, employees, or property in the District of Columbia; their asserted connection to the District was operation of Internet websites accessible to District users.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ operation of generally accessible Internet business-directory websites, without other forum contacts, satisfied the District of Columbia long-arm statute and constitutional due process for personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether alleged economic injury in the District, stated in general terms, was sufficient to establish jurisdictional facts.
3. Whether the Clayton Act independently authorized personal jurisdiction or venue in the District absent the usual minimum-contacts showing.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held the existing record did not support personal jurisdiction over defendants based solely on the accessibility of their websites in the District.
- The court found GTE’s assertions of injury in the District insufficiently supported to establish jurisdictional facts.
- The court rejected the argument that the Clayton Act supplied an independent basis to bypass minimum-contacts requirements for personal jurisdiction or venue.
- The court remanded for jurisdictional discovery and directed the district court to reassess personal jurisdiction and venue on a more developed record.

## Legal Principles

- A forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction requires facts showing purposeful, forum-directed contacts; general Internet accessibility, without more, does not itself establish “transacting business” or a “persistent course of conduct” in the forum.
- Conclusory allegations of forum-based economic injury, unsupported by concrete jurisdictional facts, are inadequate to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden at the jurisdictional stage.
- Federal antitrust venue provisions under the Clayton Act do not eliminate constitutional due process limits; venue and personal jurisdiction must still comport with minimum-contacts requirements.
- When the record is insufficient but additional facts may exist, a court may permit jurisdictional discovery before making a final jurisdiction and venue determination.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit ruled that website accessibility in the District of Columbia, without evidence of targeted forum activity or supported forum injury, did not establish personal jurisdiction on the existing record, and it remanded for jurisdictional discovery and renewed consideration of venue.


GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000)