## Facts

- A U.S.-based internet company operated an auction site accessible in France that included listings and content related to Nazi propaganda and memorabilia.
- Two French nonprofit organizations dedicated to combating antisemitism objected to the availability of that content in France and demanded that access from France be blocked.
- The organizations sued in France, where a French court asserted jurisdiction and issued orders requiring measures to prevent French users from accessing the challenged content, backed by a daily monetary penalty for noncompliance.
- The company complied on its France-specific site but did not fully restrict access to the U.S. site for French users and did not pay the assessed penalties.
- The organizations sought assistance from U.S. authorities to enforce the French orders; enforcement did not proceed, but the company was informed of the request.
- The company filed a U.S. federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the French orders could not be recognized or enforced in the United States because enforcement would violate the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court in California could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the French organizations based on their cease-and-desist communications, foreign litigation targeting the company’s California-based operations, and efforts to invoke U.S. enforcement mechanisms.
2. Whether the declaratory judgment action presented an Article III case or controversy that was ripe when no U.S. court had yet been asked to recognize or enforce the French orders.
3. Whether an appellate court should reach the First Amendment enforceability question when jurisdictional and justiciability questions were disputed.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice.
- A majority of the en banc court concluded the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
- No single rationale commanded a majority on ripeness; some judges found the dispute unripe absent concrete U.S. enforcement steps, while others found it ripe due to ongoing sanctions and practical pressure to restrict speech.
- Because enough judges voted to dismiss on either ripeness or personal-jurisdiction grounds, the case was dismissed without a binding appellate ruling on the First Amendment merits.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction may be supported where foreign parties expressly aim conduct at a forum by directing demands to a forum resident, prosecuting foreign proceedings aimed at the resident’s forum-based conduct, and seeking to trigger enforcement mechanisms within the forum.
- Declaratory relief requires a real, immediate controversy; where alleged injury depends on contingent future recognition or enforcement in U.S. courts, ripeness may be lacking.
- When a court dismisses on justiciability or jurisdictional grounds, it does not issue a merits determination on the enforceability of the challenged foreign orders under the First Amendment.

## Conclusion

The en banc court ordered dismissal without prejudice, leaving unresolved on appeal whether the foreign speech-restrictive orders could be enforced in the United States, while signaling that targeted efforts by foreign claimants to constrain a U.S. speaker can support specific personal jurisdiction but may not alone establish ripeness for declaratory relief absent concrete domestic enforcement proceedings.


Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)