## Facts

- Minnesota consumers used MoneyMutual’s website after viewing advertising for short-term loans.
- MoneyMutual operated an interactive site that collected consumers’ personal and financial information.
- MoneyMutual did not issue loans; it sold consumer “leads” to third-party lenders who then offered loans to those consumers.
- Plaintiffs alleged MoneyMutual’s marketing misrepresented or obscured material facts about the loans’ safety, affordability, and true cost, and implied lenders were vetted.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were steered to high-cost loans that violated Minnesota usury and consumer-protection laws.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Minnesota state court asserting Minnesota consumer-protection statutory claims.
- MoneyMutual moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state online lead generator based on its internet advertising, data collection from Minnesota residents, and sale of those leads to lenders.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly stated Minnesota consumer-protection claims against a lead generator that was not the direct lender, based on alleged deceptive marketing and omissions.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held Minnesota courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over MoneyMutual.
- The court concluded MoneyMutual purposefully directed commercial activity at Minnesota residents through an interactive website and related advertising, creating sufficient minimum contacts.
- The court held the alleged consumer injuries arose out of or related to MoneyMutual’s Minnesota-directed conduct.
- The court determined exercising jurisdiction was consistent with fair play and substantial justice given Minnesota’s regulatory interest and the burden on the defendant.
- The court allowed core consumer-protection claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage based on the pleaded misrepresentations and omissions, notwithstanding MoneyMutual’s role as an intermediary.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant purposefully directs activities at the forum, the claims arise out of or relate to those activities, and jurisdiction is reasonable under due process.
- Operating an interactive, transaction-oriented website that repeatedly solicits and transacts with forum residents can constitute purposeful availment even if the defendant is not physically present in the forum.
- Claims alleging deceptive marketing and material omissions may proceed at the pleading stage when the alleged misstatements are tied to the plaintiff’s decision to engage in the transaction and resulting harm.
- State consumer-protection statutes may reach intermediaries that market and facilitate transactions, not only the entity that ultimately provides the product or service, when the intermediary’s own conduct is alleged to be deceptive.

## Conclusion

The court held that an online lead generator that deliberately solicits forum residents and profits from repeated in-forum transactions may be sued in the forum for claims tied to that conduct, and that plaintiffs adequately pleaded deceptive-marketing theories under Minnesota consumer-protection law even though the defendant was not the direct lender.


Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2016)