## Facts

- John F. Tamburo, an Illinois resident doing business as Man’s Best Friend Software, sold dog-breeding software and operated an online pedigree database.
- Tamburo developed his product using pedigree data taken from defendants’ pedigree websites, asserting the data were in the public domain.
- Defendants, located outside Illinois (Canada, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and Australia), believed Tamburo misappropriated their data.
- Tamburo alleged defendants conducted an Internet-based retaliation campaign, including mass emails and website posts accusing him of theft and urging a boycott of his products.
- Tamburo alleged the campaign was aimed at harming his Illinois-based business and reputation and caused lost sales.
- Wild Systems Pty Ltd., an Australian company associated with competing “Breedmate” software, allegedly played a limited role, including reposting messages to a private listserv and participating in a closed chat group.
- Tamburo and another plaintiff sued in federal court in Illinois for federal and Illinois antitrust violations and Illinois intentional torts (including defamation, trade libel, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy).
- The district court dismissed all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated federal and Illinois antitrust claims under the Twombly pleading standard.
2. Whether Illinois courts could exercise general personal jurisdiction over the non-Illinois defendants based on their websites and limited sales or contacts.
3. Whether Illinois courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants for Illinois intentional tort claims based on allegedly targeted online communications harming an Illinois resident.
4. Whether Illinois courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Wild Systems based on its limited alleged involvement and sales.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal and Illinois antitrust claims for failure to state a claim.
- The court held general personal jurisdiction was lacking over all defendants because none had continuous and systematic contacts with Illinois.
- The court held Illinois had specific personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants (Dworkin, Henry, Hayes, and Mills) for the Illinois intentional tort claims based on conduct allegedly directed at Tamburo in Illinois; it reversed the jurisdictional dismissal as to them and remanded.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Wild Systems for lack of personal jurisdiction because its alleged conduct was not expressly aimed at Illinois.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the surviving state-law tort claims against the individual defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Under Twombly, an antitrust complaint must allege enough factual matter to make an agreement in restraint of trade plausible; conclusory allegations of conspiracy or boycott are insufficient.
- Antitrust injury requires harm to competition, not merely harm to a single competitor framed as an antitrust dispute.
- General jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts approximating presence in the forum; operating websites and making sporadic or minimal sales into the forum ordinarily does not satisfy this standard.
- For intentional torts, specific jurisdiction may be based on “purposeful direction” consistent with Calder’s effects framework: intentional conduct expressly aimed at the forum with knowledge the effects would be felt there.
- Internet-based conduct is assessed under ordinary due process principles; no separate, Internet-specific jurisdiction test applies.
- Specific jurisdiction requires that the claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum-directed conduct and that exercising jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected Tamburo’s antitrust theories as implausibly pleaded, but held that Illinois could hear his intentional-tort claims against out-of-state individuals alleged to have targeted an online campaign at his Illinois business; it declined jurisdiction over an Australian company whose alleged involvement was too attenuated and not aimed at Illinois.


Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010)