1 STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A14

- 1307 Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Took no part, Lillehaug, Chutich, JJ. Scott Ril l ey , et al.,

Respondents,

vs. Filed: August 24, 2016 Office of Appellate Courts MoneyMutual, LLC,

Appellant.

__

______________________ E. Michelle Drake, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, P.C. , Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mark Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota and; Daniel C. Bryden, Bryden Law Firm, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota , for respondents. Thomas H. Boyd, Joseph M W indler, Chistina Rieck Loukas, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota and; Donald J. Putterman, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Logan, LLP, San Francisco, California for appellant

. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Eric J. Maloney, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General.
Jenneane J e nsen, Kris Palmer, Jense n & Palmer, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota and; Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.2 _______________________ S Y L L A B U S
A ppellant’s electronic communications and web

- based advertising sufficie ntly targeted Minnesota and established contacts with Minnesota t o make it reasonable and consistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice to exercis e specific personal jurisdiction over appellant. The district court, therefore, did not err by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
O P I N I O N ANDERSON, Justice. This case raises the question of what contacts a defendant must have with
Minnesota before our courts can exercise specific personal ju risdiction over that defendant. Appellant MoneyMutual, LLC, claims that the district court erred when it concluded that it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over MoneyMutual based on MoneyMutual’s email correspondence with Minnesota residents and advertising in Minnesota

. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that specific personal jurisdiction existed . We granted MoneyMutual’s petition for review
and now affirm the court of appeals

. I. MoneyMutual operate s a website that allows individuals to apply for short

- term loans, com monly known as “payday loans.” After an individual submits a loan application through MoneyMutual’s website, MoneyMutual “matches” the applicant with3

a payday lender in its network. Fo r each matched applicant, MoneyMutual receives a “lead” fee from the lender. Respondents are four Minnesota residents who used MoneyMutual’s website to obtain payday loans. Respondents filed a class

- action complaint , alleging that MoneyMutual matched

re spondents with payday lenders that were unlicensed in Minnesota. The complaint also alleged that the terms of the payday loans respondents received were illegal under Minnesota’s payday

- lending statutes because, among other claims, the annual percentage

r ates (APRs) advertised by MoneyMutual

— which ranged “between 26 1% and 1304% for a 14 day loan”

— exceeded the maximum allowable APRs under Minnesota law. 1 Respondents also claim ed that MoneyMutual’s website and advertising contained misrepresentations that v iolated Minnesota’s consumer protection statutes , Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.44 , 325F.6 7 , 325F.6 9 , (2014). 2 Finally, the complaint allege d that MoneyMutual unjustly enriched itself; that MoneyMutual participated in a civil conspiracy; and that MoneyMutual aided and abetted unlicensed lenders in making illegal loans to Minnesota residents

.

1 Respondents ’ complaint cites Minn. Stat. §§ 47.60, subd. 2, 47 .601, subd. 2(a)(3)(ii) (2014) , for these propositions.

2 For example, respondents allege d that MoneyMutual’s website falsely represents to potential borro wers that “MoneyMutual carefully chooses its network of lenders and requires each of them to follow a strict code of conduct, including abiding by all applicable state and federal laws.”4

MoneyMutual moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3
See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(f). In response to this motion, respondents submitted affidavits and exhibits alleging three categories of contacts connecting MoneyMutual with Minnesota

. 4 First, respondents allege d that MoneyMutual sent several emails to Minnesota residents in connection with generating business

. For instance, r espondents allege d that M oneyMutual email ed loan applicants once it had “matched” the applicant with a particular payday lender. Significantly, respondents note that these emails were
sent after the applicant had supplied MoneyMutual with valid physical address information as par t of the application process. Additionally, respondents allege d that MoneyMutual sent emails to applicants who started but did not finish their online application. These emails urge d the applicant to complete the application in order to be

3 MoneyMutual also moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join certain payday lenders as indispensable parties. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(f), 19.01. The district court denied this motion and the court of appeals affirmed. MoneyMutual did not raise this issue in its petition for review or in its brief to our c ourt ; thus , the issue is not before us.

4 Although several affidavits were submitted by the parties and considered by the district court, the motion at issue here remained a motion to dismiss and was not converted to a motion for summary judgment

. This is because the motion sought dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, not failure to state a claim. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 (“ If, on a motion asserting the defense that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted , matters outsid e the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as on e for summary judgment . . . .” (emphasis added) ) ; s ee Marquette Nat ’l Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris , 270 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1978) (“For purposes of a Rule 12.02, Rules of Civil Procedure, pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the factual allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavits are to be taken as true.”).5

matched with a payday lender. Finally, respondents allege d that MoneyMutual sent emails to prior loan applicants inviting them to apply for additional loans. Second, respondents allege d that MoneyMutual bought television advertisements that appeared in Minnesota. R es pondents submitted several affidavits from class members who claimed to have seen advertisements featuring a celebrity , Montel Williams, promoting the MoneyMutual website. MoneyMutual denies that it ever placed television advertising on local Minnesota br oadcasts. According to MoneyMutual, its television advertising campaigns are purely national in scope. R espondents were unable to recall the specific broadcasts or channels featuring the MoneyMutual television advertisements

. Third , respondents allege d t hat MoneyMutual established contacts with Minnesota through its online advertising. Specifically, respondents claim ed that MoneyMutual targeted Minnesota residents through a Google AdWords campaign. Respondents submitted an affidavit purporting to show t hat MoneyMutual purchased online ads that would appear when an individual searched Google for the terms “payday loan Minnesota” and “payday loan Minneapolis.” 5 At no point during the present litigation

5 Respondents submitted an affidavit from a law clerk employed by one of the law firms representing respondents. The affiant claimed experience with website marketing and Google AdWords and alleged that upon initiating a search Google with the phrase “payday loan Minnesota” and “payday loan Minneapolis,” the MoneyMu tual website appears in the “Ads” column. Clicking the information symbol and the “Ad Settings” link next to MoneyMutual’s ads produced separate pages that explained: “This ad matches the exact search you entered: ‘payday loans Minnesota’ ”; and “This ad matches the exact search you entered: ‘payday loans Minneapolis.’ ” Th e “Ad Settings” page is an explanation of how Google matched the search terms to the ads that appeared. Respondents allege that the Google AdWords service “allows advertis ers to use ‘k eyword6

has MoneyMutual denied using Google AdWords to presen t its online advertisements when a user searched for “payday loan Minnesota” or “payday loan Minneapolis.” But MoneyMutual did note that none of the respondents or class members indicated that they actually came into contact with MoneyMutual’s website as a result of a Google search or one of MoneyMutual’s AdWords advertisements. After considering all of the affidavits and the arguments of the parties, t he district court denied MoneyMutual’s motion to d ismis s. MoneyMutual appealed , and the court of appeal s affirmed the decision of the district court. See Ril l ey v. MoneyMutual LLC , 863 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. App. 2015). We granted MoneyMutual’s petition for review on the issue of personal jurisdiction.
II.

“ Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law , which we review de

novo. ” Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. , 682 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 2004)

. When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction , we determine whether, taking all the factual allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavits as matching options’ to control which searches trigger their ads,” which include an “exact match ” option. With the “exact match” option, an advertisement will “appear only when someone searches for your exact keyword,” or “close variations , ” including “misspellings, singular and plural forms, acronyms, stemmings

. . . abbreviations, and accents

. ” Based on these searches and the Ad Settings page, and other test searches “to rule out alternative explanations,” the affidavit alleges that “it appears that MoneyMutual, or a person or entity acting on its behalf, is specifically paying to advertise for the terms ‘payday loans Minnesota’ and ‘payday loans Minneapolis,’ or close variations of those terms. Based on [the law clerk’s] experience with PPC [pay

- pe r - click] advertising and website marketing, [the affiant] can think of no other plausible explanation for why Google’s Ads Settings for MoneyMutual’s ads read, ‘This ad matches the exact search you entered: ‘payday loans Minnesota’ or ‘This ad matches the exact search you entered: ‘payday loans Minneapolis.’ ’ ”7

true, the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Norris , 270 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1978) ; Hardrives, Inc. v. City of
LaCrosse , 307 Minn. 290, 293, 240 N.W.2d 814, 816 (1976)

. Minnesota’s long

- arm statute, Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2014), provides that personal jurisdiction shall not be found over a nonresident defendant if it would “violate fairness and substantial justice.” We have held that Minnesota’s long

- arm statute “ extend [s] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows .” Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp. , 495 N.W.2d 408, 410 (Minn. 1992). Therefore , “ when analyzing most personal jurisdiction questions , Minnesota courts may simply apply the federal case law. ” 6 Id. at 411. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state court from exercis ing personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless that defendant has “minimum contacts” with the state and maintaining the lawsuit “ does not offend traditional notions of fai r play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) ( internal quotation marks omitted) . “Minim um contacts” exist when the defendant “purposefully avails
itself ” of the privilege s, benefits, and protections of the forum state, such that the defendant “ should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Burger King

6 MoneyMutual has framed its arguments entirely in terms of Due Process Clause jurisprudence and thus it is unnecessary to address the specific text of the Minnesota long

- arm statute.8

Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U. S. 462, 47 4

- 75 (1985) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958); World

- Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286, 29 7 (1980)). The “minimum contacts” necessary to support specific 7 personal jurisdiction over the defendant must focus on “ t he relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation ,” and the “defendant’s suit

- related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state,” Walden v. Fiore , ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014) ( internal quotation marks omitted) , such that the litigation results from alleged harms that “arise out of or relate to” the defe ndant’s contacts with the forum, Burger King , 471 U.S.
at 472. This minimum

- contacts inquiry must “look[] to the defendant’ s contacts with the forum St ate itself

” and not the defendant’s “ ‘ random, fortuitous, or attenuated ’ contact s ” with “persons affiliated with the State” or “persons who reside there.” Walden , ___ U.S.
at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1122

- 23 (quoting Burger King , 471 U. S . at 480)

. But in som e cases, “a defendant’ s contacts with the forum State may be intertwined with his transactions or interactions with the plaintiff or other parties

. ” Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1123

. Although p hysical presence by the defendant in the forum state is not re quired for specific personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts may exist when an out

- of

- state defendant “purposefully direct[s]” activities at the forum state, and the litigation “arises

7 Respond ents allege only specific personal jurisdiction applies here, which requires that the litigation “arise out of or relate to ” the defendant’s contacts with the forum state

. Burger King , 471 U.S. at 472 & n.15 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S. A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)) . By contrast, general personal jurisdiction may be exercised based on contacts unrelated to the litigation, e.g., domicile or “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state. Daimler AG v. Bauman , ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014); see also Walden v. Fiore , ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121, n.6 (2014)

.9

out of or relate [ s ] to ” those activities. Burger King , 471 U.S. at 472; Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat'l Med. Waste, Inc. , 65 F.3d 1427, 1432

- 34 (8th Cir. 1995) ; Real Props

. , Inc. v. Mission Ins. Co. , 427 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Minn. 1988)

. T he United States Supreme Court has recognized that “a substantial amount of business i s transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines

. ” Burger King , 471 U.S. at 47 6 . As a result, the Court has “consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction” when “ a commercial actor’s efforts are ‘purposefully directed’ toward residents of another State .” Id

. If minimum contacts are established, we must consider the “reasonableness” of personal jurisdiction according to traditional notions of “ fair play and substantial justice , ” weighing factors such as the convenience of the parties and the interests of the forum
state. See i d. at 476

- 77 (citing World

- Wide Volkswagen Corp. , 444 U.S. at 292). We analyze five factors to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with federal due process: “(1) the quantity of contacts with the forum state; (2) the nature and quality of those contacts; (3) the connection of the cause of action with these contacts; (4) the interest of the state providing a forum; and (5) the convenience of the parties.” Juelich , 682 N.W.2d at 570. This five

- factor test is simply a means for evaluating the same key principles of personal jurisdiction established by the U nited
S tates Supreme Court

— namely, whether exercising jurisdiction ov er a defendant is consistent with “traditional concepts of fair play and substantial justice.” See K

- V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A. , 648 F.3d 588, 592 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Burger10

King , 471 U.S. at 464) ; Dent

- Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv ., Inc. , 332 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn. 1983)

.

“ The first three factors [ of this test ] determine whether minimum contacts exist and the last two factors determine whether jurisdiction is reasonable according to
traditional notions of fair play and substantia l justice. ” Juelich , 682 N.W.2d at 570

- 71. Although the key inquiry is whether minimum contacts have been established, a strong showing on the reasonableness factors may “serve to fortify a borderline showing” of
minimum

- contacts factors. Id. at 570

- 51 (quoting Ticketmaster

- N

. Y

. , Inc. v. Alioto , 26 F.3d 201, 210 (1st Cir. 1994)); see Burger King , 471 U.S. at 477 (“ These [reasonableness] considerations sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contac ts than would otherwise be required .”).
III. In light of the test for establishing specific personal jurisdiction, we now evaluate whether MoneyMutual has the necessary minimum contacts with Minnesota to support a finding of person al jurisdiction. Respond ents argue that MoneyMutual has three categories of contacts with Minnesota: (1) email s sent to Minnesota residents, (2) television advertisements that appeared in Minnesota, and (3) Google AdWords
ad verti s ements that targeted the Minnesota market. We add ress each in turn.
A. Respondents assert that MoneyMutual made contact with more than 1,000 Minnesotans via email. Specifically, respondents identify three types of emails that11

MoneyMutual sent to known Minnesota residents. First, after an applicant com pleted the online application process on MoneyMutual’s website, MoneyMutual sent the applicant an email “matching” the applicant with a payday lender in MoneyMutual’s network. Second, MoneyMutual sent emails to encourage applicants to complete an unfinish ed loan application. Finally, MoneyMutual sent emails soliciting prior loan applicants to apply for additional loans. MoneyMutual argues that these email contacts are irrelevant to the minimum contacts analysis. To support this argument, MoneyMutual a nd its amici rely heavily on the U nited S tates Supreme Court’s decision in Walden to argue that its interactions with known Minnesota residents are per se insufficient to establish minimum contacts with a Minnesota forum . But Walden ’s holding is not as br oad as MoneyMutual contends , and its facts are easily distinguishable. Walden merely held that a defendant’s “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” contact with a forum resident in an airport

— while the resident was outside of the forum

— was insufficient to su pport personal jurisdiction. ___ U.S. at

___, 134 S. Ct. at 1122

- 23 (quoting Burger King , 471 U.S. at 480) ; see MRL Dev. LLC v. Whitecap Inv. Corp. , Civil No. 2013

- 48, 2014 WL 5441552, at *4 (D.V.I. Oct. 26, 2014) (rejecting an overly broad reading of Wal den and stating that “ Walden stands for the proposition that a defendant’s contact with a resident of the forum state, outside of the forum state, is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the forum state”). Walden does not disturb numerous, long

- established precedents allowing courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants based in part on commercial contacts with businesses or residents that are located inside the forum. See, e.g. , Burger King , 471 U.S.12

at 472

- 77; McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co. , 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957); Travelers Health Ass'n
v. V irgini a , 339 U.S. 643, 647

- 48 (1950). Indeed, even Walden explained that in some cases “a defendant’s contacts with the forum State may be intertwined with his transactions or interactions wit h the plaintiff.” ____ U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1123 (emphasis added). Here, MoneyMutual’s commercial solicitations of over 1,000 loan applicants with known Minnesota addresses were not “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” contacts with forum residents, but rather constitute “intertwined” contacts with both Minnesota residents and the state of
Minnesota. MoneyMutual next argues that the emails are not relevant to the jurisdictional analysis because long

- distance communications between a plaintiff and d efendant

— and particularly email communications

— cannot establish personal jurisdiction. But in Marquette National Bank we clear ly stated : “ The fact that the nonresident appellants were never physically present in the state in the course of their transactio n, which was accomplished entirely by telephone and mail, is clearly of no significant consequence. ” 270 N.W.2d at 295

. The U nited S tates Supreme Court also has recognized that “a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire comm unications across state lines

. ” Burger King , 471 U.S. at 47 6

. And the Court has “consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction” when “a commercial actor’s efforts are ‘purposefully directed’ toward residents of another State.” Id . In this case, Minnesota residents provided MoneyMutual with their personal information and, in13

return, MoneyMutual matched those residents with potential lenders. That these transactions 8 were accomplished over long dist ance “is clearly of no significant consequence.” See Marquette Nat ’l Bank of Minneapolis , 270 N.W.2d at 295. Nonetheless, M oneyMutual argues that these contacts should be disregarded because they occurred via email. Historically, courts have been will ing to find minimum contacts based in part on communications by out

- of

- state defendants with forum residents, such as phone calls, faxes, and letters. See, e.g. , Grand Entm’t Grp. v. Star Media Sales , Inc. , 988 F.2d 476, 482 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Mail and tele phone communications sent by the defendant into the forum may count toward the minimum
contac ts that support jurisdiction.”); Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis , 270 N.W.2d
at 2 9 5. But the proliferation of email has created additional questions regarding the role
that electronic long

- distance communications should play in establishing personal jurisdiction.

8 MoneyMutual argues that it never engaged in any “transaction s ” with Minnesota residents and asserts that the court of appeals was mistaken when it characterized the events in question as three

- sided transaction s between borrowers, lenders, and MoneyMutual. See Ri l ley v. MoneyMutual, LLC , 863 N.W.2d 789, 794 (Minn. App. 2015) (“The interaction between the respondents, MoneyMutual, and the lenders is better described as a three

- sided transaction with each party taking action before the loan is made, rather than a series of unilateral acts by the respondents.”). But even if MoneyMutual were correct and the court of appeals incorrectly characterized MoneyMutual’s relationship with lenders and borrowers, MoneyMutual itself still engaged in transactions with Minnesota residents. The mere fact that MoneyMutual never extended a loan or that respondents in this case never paid MoneyMutual does not refute the existence of a transaction. R espondents clearly provided their personal information to MoneyMutual and, in return for that information, MoneyMutual matched respondents with various lenders in MoneyMutual’s network. Although there was no monetary cons ideration, this exchange of information still constitutes a transaction. And, significantly, the emails sent by MoneyMutual to Minnesota residents matching them with a lender represent the culmination of that transaction.14

The primary problem with relying on emails to establish personal jurisdiction is that, unlike a letter, the sender of an email may not know the geog raphic destination of the message. See, e.g. , Shrader v. Biddinger , 633 F.3 d 1235, 1247

- 48 (10th Cir. 2011) (“ Although email is directed to particular recipients, email addresses typ ically do not reveal anything about the geogr aphic location of the addres see.”); Rice v. Karsch , 154 F. App’ x 454, 462 (6th Cir. 2005) (“ There is nothing about this email address which indicates that Rice would have accessed his yahoo.com email account or otherwis e read this email in Tennessee.”); Watiti v. Walden Univ. , No. 07

- 4782, 2008 WL 2280932, at *10 (D.N.J. May 30, 2008) (“Unlike a ‘snail mail’ address (i.e., U.S. Mail) or even a telephone number, there is usually nothing about an email address that would indicate to the sender the location of the recipient. ”). This rea lity is particularly troublesome
because the personal

-

jurisdiction inquiry must focus on the defendant’s contacts with the forum and not merely “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” connections with residents of a forum. Walden , ___ U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 112 3 (quoting Burger King , 471 U.S. at 480) ; see Aaron Ferer & Sons Co. v. Atlas Scrap Iron & Metal Co. , 558 F.2d 450, 455
n.6 (8th Cir. 1977) ; W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Westin, Inc. , 337 N.W.2d 676, 67 8

- 7 9 (Minn. 1983) . If the sender of an email does not kno w the physical location of the recipient, the fact that the recipient happens to be located in a particular state is the definition of a “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” connection. As a result of these challenges, three approaches to email

- based conta cts have developed in federal courts. First, for the above reasons, some courts reject any15

consideration of email

- based contacts. 9 Under a second approach, courts hold that email communications alone are insufficient but that emails are “secondary” conta cts that can be added to other types of contacts to support personal jurisdiction. 10 Finally, under a third approach, courts suggest that email

- based contacts may establish personal jurisdiction, provided that the context of the email, or other relevant ev idence, indicates that the sender knew or had reason to know that the recipient was located, and would receive the email within, a certain forum

— or more generally, the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the sender “purposefully directed” the email at the forum. 11

9 See, e.g. , Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc. , 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The fact that [the defendant]

. . . shower[ed] past customers and other subscribers with company

- related emails does not show a relation between the company and Indiana.

. . . [E]mail .

. . bounces from one server to another

. . . it winds up wherever the recipient happens to be at that instant. The connection between the place where an email is opened and a lawsuit is entirely fortuitous.”); KG Funding, Inc. v. Partridg e , No. 12

- 2155, 2012 WL 5904439, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2012) (“[T]he [email] receivers’ location alone should not determine specific jurisdiction. Partridge purposefully communicated with a resident who lived in Minnesota, but there is no evidence that Partridge purposefully availed himself of the Minnesota legal forum.”); Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger , No. 96 CIV. 3620, 1997 WL 97097, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1997) (holding that “e

- mails are analogous to letters to or telephone communications with people in New York,” which “are not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction”).

10 See, e.g. , Yellow Brick Rd., LLC v. Childs , 36 F. Supp. 3d 855, 872 (D. Minn. 2014) (“[E]mail/telephone/fax communications may only be used to support the exercise of persona l jurisdiction

— ‘they do not themselves establish jurisdiction.’ ” (quoting Digi

– Tel Holdings , Inc. v. Proteq Telecomms. (PTE), Ltd. , 89 F.3d 519, 523 (8th Cir. 1996 )); Nicollet Cattle Co. v. United Food Grp., LLC , No. 08

- 5899, 2009 WL 2218792, at *4 (D. Mi nn. July 23, 2009) (“[M]ail and telephone contacts

— and presumably email contacts as well

— ‘remain a consideration in determining whether the defendant purposefully availed [it]self of the privilege of doing business in Minnesota.’ ” (quoting Wessels , 65 F.3 d at 1433)).

11 See Watiti , 2008 WL 2280932, at *10

- 11 (“Email correspondence .

. . will not trigger personal jurisdiction unless the communications show such ‘purposeful16

Having considered the body of persuasive authority on this point, we conclude that the third approach, which considers emails just like any other contact with the forum , is the appropriate rule of law . In the modern digital era, with ubiqui tous e

- commerce and electronic communication, it would be arbitrary to exclude emails from consideration in a minimum contacts analysis, or to limit email to a n exclusively supplemental role. The most reasonable approach is to simply apply the traditi onal minimum contacts analysis by considering the quantity, nature, and quality of the email contacts, and whether those contacts establish a “substantial connection” between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, such that the defendant “purposeful ly availed” himself of the forum and “reasonably anticipate[d] being haled into court ” there. Walden , ___ U.S. at

___, 134 S. Ct. at 1121 (quoting World

- Wide Volkswag e n , 444 U.S. at 297) ; Burger King , 471 U.S. at 472

- 74; Wessels , 65 F.3d at 1432. T he uni que characteristics of e mail as a form of communication necessarily require a district court to consider whether the
availment’ .

. . . [The] threshold question [regarding purposeful availment]

. . . is whether there is any indication in the substance of the emails, the email address itself, or other facts incident to the communications that the sender of the emails was aware that the recipient was located in or would be accessing the emails from the f orum state.”); see, e.g. , Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Rushford , No. 14

- 6428, 2015 WL 5164791, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2015) (“Before he sent his first email to Arora, Salas Rushford knew that the company was based in New Jersey”); Valley Nat’l Bank v. Coron a - Norco Unified Sch. Dist. , No. 15

- CV

- 0282, 2015 WL 5023252, at *5 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 24, 2015) (“[D]efendant’s e

- mails .

. . do evidence reaching out to Oklahoma because his signature block, which would have been visible following his first communication, c learly demonstrates his presence in Oklahoma.”); Doe v. Hofstetter , No. 11

- CV

- 02209, 2012 WL 2319052, at *5 (D. Colo. June 13, 2012) (“The emails demonstrate that Defendant purposefully directed tortious activity at Colorado

— as long as Defendant knew that John Doe was located in this state.”); see also Shrader , 633 F.3d at 1248 (“[I]f the plaintiff does not show that the defendant otherwise knew where the recipient was located, the email itself does not demonstrate purposeful direction of the message to the forum state

. . . .”).17

defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s location or at least had reason to believe that the email would be received in a particular jurisdic tion. Here, MoneyMutual’s solicitation of and transaction s with over 1,000 Minnesotan loan applicants via email demonstrates a “purposeful direction” of litigation

- related conduct at Minnesota. Significantly, when MoneyMutual sent emails matching applica nts to lenders in its network, those applicants had already completed an online application that showed they were Minnesota resident s . Thus, MoneyMutual clearly knew or should have known that emails to these applicants likely would be opened in Minnesota. 12 Similarly, when Mo neyMutual sent follow

- up emails encouraging prior applicants to seek additional loans, MoneyMutual had sufficient information to know that the applicants were Minnesota residents and that the emails likely were to be opened in
Minnesot a. 13

12 It is no excuse that MoneyMutual’s website and email

- solicitation systems are automated and depend solely on unilateral activity by users, because MoneyMutual or others under its direction programmed these systems. See uBID, Inc . v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc. , 623 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2010) (“No more persuasive is GoDaddy’s argument that its sales to Illinois residents are automated transactions unilaterally initiated by those residents. GoDaddy tells us that its customers enter into most transactions without any human action on GoDaddy’s en d. But of course the customers . . . are not simply typing their credit card numbers into a web form and hoping they get something in return. GoDaddy itself set the system up this way. It cannot now point to its hundreds of thousands of customers in Illinois and tell us, ‘It was all their idea.’ ”); Illinois v. Hemi Grp. LLC , 622 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Characterizing the sales [ from Hemi’s website] as unilateral is misleading, however, be cause it ignores several of Hemi’s own actions that led up to and followed the sales. Hemi created several commercial, interactive websites through which customers could purchase cigarettes from Hemi.”).

13 The record is admittedly less clear regarding emails sent reminding applicants to finish a partially completed application form. To begin with, as MoneyMutual argues, the only evidence of these “unfinished application” emails comes from a private18

Despite the electronic, email

- based nature of these relationships, these contacts demonstrate “purposeful direction” toward Minnesota and a “purposeful availment” of the benefits of doing business in a Minnesota forum

— namely, a profitab le pool of low

income Minnesota residents that MoneyMutual could match with its payd ay - lending network to generate lead fees. In other words, MoneyMutual availed itself of a Minnesota forum because it profited by selling lead information to payday lenders about Minnesot a residents. These facts, demonstrating a “purposeful availment” of the Minnesota forum, should have caused MoneyMutual to reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Minnesota. Thus, MoneyMutual’s emails to respondents are contacts with Minnesota th at support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
B. Respondents next allege that MoneyMutual had contact with Minnesota through television advertisements. Respondents submitted affidavits alleging that they saw advertisements for MoneyMutual’s website o n television while in their homes in Minnesota. MoneyMutual has argued that its television advertisement campaign was

“ purely national in scope ” and specifically denies that it placed television advertisements with any “Minnesota

- based . . . television st ations.” MoneyMutual also has averred that

investigator who received the emails after he was hire d by respondents’ counsel to test MoneyMutual’s website. Indeed, no respondents alleged that they received “unfinished application” emails. Additionally, that the loan application was incomplete at the time these emails were sent raises questions regardi ng whether MoneyMutual was aware of the applicant’s state of residence at the time the emails were sent. Because the record provides no clear answers to these questions, we decline to consider the “unfinished application” emails as part of our minimum con tacts analysis.19

“[n]o advertising of any kind is targeted specifically to Minnesota or Minnesotans. Nor is any advertising content targeted specifically at Minnesota or Minnesotans.” Relying on its decision in Humphrey v. Grani te Gate Resorts, Inc. , 568 N.W.2d 715, 719

- 20 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d , 576 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. 1998), the court of appeals held that , even with its national scope, MoneyMutual’s television campaign supported personal jurisdiction in Minnesota. The court of appeals essentially concluded that , because Minnesota was included within the national sco pe of MoneyMutual’s advertising, MoneyMutual had “targeted” Minnesota and , therefore, the television advertisements were relevant contacts for establishing personal jurisdiction in Minnesota

. Rilley , 863 N.W.2d at 795. Whether a national advertising campaign is a relevant contact for the purpose of establishing specific personal jurisdiction is a question of first impression in our court. Some courts have relied i n part on purely national advertising to establish minimum contacts in support of personal jurisdiction. 14 But numerous other courts

— perhaps a

14 See, e.g. , uBID, Inc. , 623 F.3d at 428 (disagreeing with the defendant’s argument that “ [ a ] lthough its ads can be seen on Illinois television sets .

. . these are only parts of a national advertising campaign and [the defendant] does no t target .

. . Illinois residents in particular,” because it was “easy to infer” that GoDaddy “intended to reach as large an audience as possible, including [Illinois]” and because the national marketing campaign “created substantial business” for the defe ndant in Illinois); Morris v. SSE, Inc. , 843 F.2d 489, 494 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that minimum contacts were established in part by “a reasonable inference that SSE advertised in Alabama” because “[i]t is undisputed that SSE advertised in national trade magazines ” ; “such advertisements were a major source of business for SSE”; and “SSE presented no evidence and did not argue that the magazines were not sold or did not appea r in Alabama during this period ”); Henderson v. Laser Spine Inst. , 815 F. Supp. 2d 353, 377 (D. Me. 2011) (holding that minimum contacts with Maine supported personal jurisdiction based in part on “significant national sales” and “extensive national advertising” in magazines and catalogs, which was20

majority

— have rejected pu rely national advertising as a contact supporting personal jurisdiction because such act ivity is not purposefully directed at the forum state. 15 Most significantly, relying on purely national marketing activity to support minimum contacts appears to be in tension with the U nited S tates Supreme Court’s holding in J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Ni castro , 564 U.S. 873 , 886 (2011) (plurality “intended to reach a large national au dience, including potential customers in Maine”) ; Rostad v. On

- Deck, Inc. , 372 N.W.2d 717, 721 (Minn. 1985) (“On

- Deck ’ s distribution contracts and marketing efforts were calculated attempts to create a national market for his product, a market which specif ically includes Minnesota.”)

.
15 See, e.g. , Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Coop. , 17 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1994) (“[M]ere placement of advertisements in nationally distributed papers or journals does not rise to the level of purpo seful contact with a forum required

. . . to exercise personal jurisdiction

. ”); Wines v. Lake Havasu Boat Mfg., Inc. , 846 F.2d 40, 43 (8th Cir. 1988) (“The sole contact between Lake Havasu, this lawsuit, and Minnesota is Lake Havasu’s advertising of its pr oduct in a nationally distributed trade publication which is circulated in Minnesota. It does not appear .

. . that Lake Havasu’s advertising represents a purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of Minnesota law.”); Scheidt v. Young , 389 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir. 1968) (holding that “advertisements in an out of state newspaper circulated in [the forum state],

. . . [is a] peripheral occurrence[] and do [ es] not constitute some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Royalty Network Inc. v. Dishant.com , LLC , 638 F. Supp. 2d 410, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that defendant’s “selling [of] advertisements on its website to national adverti sers” was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction because there was insufficient evidence of any “purposeful attempt to take advantage of the New York market”); Seitz v. Envirotech Sys. Worldwide Inc. , 513 F. Supp. 2d 855, 864 (S.D. Tex. 2007) (“[N]at ional advertising that may include circulation in the forum state is generally insufficient to show jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in that state.”); Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel , 49 F. Supp. 2d 743 , 748

- 49 (D.N.J. 1999) (holding that “televisio n advertisement [ s ] . . . on a national cable network”; “advertisements in national magazines and newspapers”; and the “mailing of [ information ] to former guests in New Jersey and New Jersey citizens who directly request information,” without more, were “no t enough to establish minimum contacts to the forum state” because “the record does not reflect that the defendant ever specifically targeted New Jersey for its advertisements”); Polaroid Corp. v. Feely , 889 F. Supp. 21, 27 (D. Mass. 1995) (“[N]ational adv ertisements not aimed specifically at Massachusetts residents cannot subject a defendant to jurisdiction in this state .

. . .”).21

opinion) (holding that national “marketing and sales efforts” did not support personal jurisdiction; although it “ may reveal an intent to serve the U.S. market,” “ it is petitioner’s purposeful contacts with New Jersey, not with the United States, that alone are relevant”). Nicastro may be distinguishable here because the “marketing efforts” in that case consisted solely of attending several national trade shows outside of New Jersey, rather than advertising cont ent that actually appeared in the forum state. Id. Ultimately, however, Nicastro provides a guiding principle that efforts to target the national market of the United States do not equate to contacts with a particular state simply because that state is a part of the national market. Id. In light of this principle, we hold that a purely national advertising campaign that does not target Minnesota specifically cannot support a finding of personal jurisdiction.
To the extent that Humphrey v. Granite Gate R esorts, Inc. , 568 N.W .2d 715 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d , 576 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. 1998), is inconsistent with this holding, it is overruled. Because MoneyMutual denied engaging in any television advertising that was specific to or targeted the Minnesota market , and supported this denial with an affidavit, respondents cannot rely on general statements for a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction

—

rather, specific evidence must be alleged. Hoff v. Kempton , 317 N.W.2d 361, 363 n.2 (Minn. 1982) (“[I]f [the de fendant’s] motion to dismiss is supported by affidavits, the nonmoving party cannot rely on general statements in his pleading.”). Here, there is no evidence that MoneyMutual’s television advertisements were directed at22

or tailored for any Minnesota marke ts. 16 Respondents did not allege on which specific programs these advertisements appeared and provide no other evidence that indicates that MoneyMutual’s television advertising campaign specifically targeted Minnesota. As a result, MoneyMutual’s televisio n advertisements are not relevant contacts for the purpose of our minimum contacts analysis.
C. Finally, res pondents argue that MoneyMutual targeted the Minnesota market and established contacts with Minnesota through its Google AdWords advertising campai gn. Respondents submitted an affidavit indicating that MoneyMutual had purchased advertisements that appeared when a Google user searched for “payday loans Minnesota” or “payday loans Minneapolis.” According to respondents, Google’s “Ad Settings” page
in dicated that MoneyMutual’s ads matched the exact search that the user had entered

— in other words, MoneyMutual paid to display those ads to customers who specifically search ed for “payday loans Minnesota” or “payday loans Minneapolis.” Respondents

16 One respondent alleged that, when he saw MoneyMutual’s television ads, he “did not have cable TV at the time, and saw the a dvertisements on either a network or local station.” But this averme nt is still insufficient to establish that the television ads were targeted at Minnesota. According to MoneyMutual, their “purely national” advertising was distributed on national cable programs or nationally syndicated network programs. The respondent’s affidavit stated that he saw the ads on “ either a network or local station.” Thus, MoneyMutual’s ads may have appeared on a nationally syndicated program, rather than a local broadcast. In light of MoneyMutual’s affidavit, and because respondents do not provide evidence of the specific channels, networks, or programs on which the ads appeared, there is no prima facie showing that MoneyMutual targeted Minnesota with its television ads.23

argue th at these advertising purchases show an intent on MoneyMutual’s part to target
the Minnesota market. Throughout the proceedings, MoneyMutual has never specifically denied using the Google AdWords service or paying for the use of the exact keywords “payday loans Minnesota” and “payday loans Minneapolis.” 17 Instead, MoneyMutual makes several legal arguments. First, MoneyMutual argued, in a reply brief on the motion to dismiss, that the affidavit submitted by respondents “proves nothing” and “does not show
Mo neyMutual specifically targeted Minnesota” because the affidavit does not prove that

“ only Minnesota” was the target of a Google AdWords campaign

. MoneyMutual reiterated the same argument at the motion hearing, stating that “nowhere does the affiant

. . . say that, well, she checked to see if exactly the same thing happened when she tried other states and other locales. So it’s not proof of anything.” This argument fails because it is not necessary to rule out the targeting of other forums, in addition to Minnesota, in order to establish Minnesota’s personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant . Hypothetically, if MoneyMutual paid for AdWords directed at other states, such as “payday loan New York,” it would not diminish the conclusion that MoneyMutua l targeted Minnesota with its AdWords campaign. Rather, it would tend to establish contacts with both Minnesota and New York. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, w e must accept as true respondents’ prima facie allegations

17 MoneyMutual generally affirm s that “[n]o advertising of any kind is targeted specifically to Minnesota or Minnesotans.” This general denial is troubling in light of the allegations in respondents’ affidavits and exhibits regarding the Google AdWords c ampaign.24

related to these Goo gle Ads, including that there is no “ plausible explanation ” for
Mon eyMutual’s ads to appear as an “ exact match ” for “ payday loan Minnesota” other than MoneyMutual “ specifically paying to advertise ” those e xact keywords. Certainly MoneyMutual has not offer ed any plausible explanation for the exact match

. N or has MoneyMutual specifically denied the existence of such an exact match. Second, MoneyMutual argues that the Google AdWords allegation is “irrelevant, speculative, [and] lack[s] foundation.” Specific ally, MoneyMutual argues that the allegation lacks foundation and is speculative because the affiant was a “clerk employed by Respondents’ law firm who speculate [d] as to how Google operates and what advertising MoneyMutual purchased.” B ut the affidavit s ubmitted by respondents is detailed and consists primarily of quotes and screenshots from Google’s website that explain how Google AdWords, the Ad Settings page, and the “exact match” option functioned. MoneyMutual does not provide any evidence to contrad ict respondents’ account and does not allege that the affidavit is somehow fraudulent or wrong . At this early stage of the litigation, we must take all of the allegations contained in the complaint and the supporting affidavits as true. Hardrives, Inc. , 307 Minn. at 293, 240 N.W.2d at 816

. Respondents have provided a sufficient basis for considering the Google AdWords evidence. Third, MoneyMutual argues that the Google AdWords allegation is “irrelevant because no Respondent alleges that they actual ly pe rformed a Google search.” This relevance argument presumably refers to the “connection” requirement for specific jurisdiction. See Burger King , 471 U.S. at 472

- 73 (requiring that the harm resulting in25

litigation “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’ s contacts with the forum); Wessels , 65 F.3d at 1432

- 34. In other words, MoneyMutual argues that respondents have failed to provide evidence that a respondent or class member saw the Google Ad, clicked on it, and that it caused him or her to apply for a l oan at the MoneyMutual website.
Courts disagree about how to apply this connection requirement (also referred to as the “relatedness” or “nexus” requirement) for specific personal jurisdiction. Myers v. Casino Queen, Inc. , 689 F.3d 904, 912

- 13 (8th Cir. 2 012) (describing the three major approaches: a strict “proximate cause” standard; a “but for” standard; and a more lenient “substantial connection” standard). In many courts, the connection requirement does not require proof that the litigation was strict ly caused by or “ [ arose ] out of” the defendant’s

contacts ; rather, it is sufficient to show that the contacts are “substantially connected” or “related to” the litigation. For example, in S.E.C. v. Carrillo , 115 F.3d 1540, 1544 (11th Cir. 1997) , the court rejected the defendant’s argument that personal jurisdiction was lacking because the SEC failed to show that advertisements actually caused investors to purchase securities. That argument “misconstrue[ed]” the relatedness prong , under which

“ the contacts must be related to the plaintiff’ s cause of action or have given rise to it. ” Id. at 1544. The relatedness prong was satisfied as “the advertisements were ‘related to’
the causes of action because the advertisements were a means by which [the defendant] offered and sought to sell its unregistered securities t o potential American investors.” Id. A number of other courts have adopted this reasoning. 18

18 See, e.g. , Myers , 689 F.3d at 912

- 13 (rejecting the “proximate cause” approach and appearing to follow a more “flexible approach” to the relatedness inquiry) ;26

Although at this early stage of the litigation there is no evidence that the Google Ads actually caused a ny of the claims, the Google Ads are sufficiently related to the claims of respondents to survive a motion to dismiss . Respondents allege that MoneyMutual’s website and advertising violated consumer protection statutes on false advertising and deceptive t rade practices and that MoneyMutual conspired with, aided, and abetted, unlicensed payday lenders that extended loans under terms that violated Minnesota law. MoneyMutual’s Google Ads, which were targeted at searches including “Minnesota” and “Minneapolis ,” solicited viewers to apply for these allegedly illegal payday loans by stating, for example: “Apply Online Now www.moneymutual.com Fast Payday Loan

- Apply Online! Safe & Bad Credit OK Up to $1,000. ” As in the Carrillo case discussed above, these ads a re sufficiently “related to” the cause of action because they were a means by which MoneyMutual solicited Minnesotans to apply for the allegedly illegal loans. Carrillo , 115 F.3d at 1544

. As a result, MoneyMutual’s use of Google AdWords advertising that was specifically designed to target Minnesota residents is a relevant contact with the Minnesota forum for the purpose of the minimum contacts analysis.
D. Having reviewed the various categories of contacts that MoneyMutual had with Minnesota, we must det ermine whether sufficient minimum contacts exist to support the
Ticketmaster

- N

. Y

. , Inc. , 26 F.3d at 206 (“[W]e think it significant that the [two halves of the relatedness requirement are] disjunctive in nature, referring to suits ‘aris[ing] out of, or relat[ing] to,’ in

- forum activities. We believe that this added language portends added flexibility and signals a relaxation of the applicable stand ard. A number of ot her courts share this belief.” (citations omitted))

.27

existence of personal jurisdiction here

. In determining whether a defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts , ” we consider the contacts alleged by the plaintiff in t he aggregate and not indiv idually , by look ing at the t otality of the circumstances.” Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas Algodoneras Selectas, S.A. , 51 F.3d 1383, 1388 (8th Cir. 1995)

. After a thorough review, we conclude that minimum contacts with Minnesota exist a nd support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case

. MoneyMutual sent over 1,000 emails to known Minnesotans , soliciting them to apply for payday loans. These emails were the culmination of transactions between MoneyMutual and Minnesota residen ts through which Minnesota residents provided their personal information to MoneyMutual in return for being matched with a payday lender. By engaging in these transactions and knowingly matching Minnesota residents with payday lenders, MoneyMutual purpose fully availed itself of the Minnesota market and Minnesota forum and should have “reasonably anticipate[d] being haled into court” in
Minnesota. Burger King , 471 U.S. at 47 4

. These contacts alone are sufficient to support a finding of personal jurisdicti on. MoneyMutual also engaged with the Minnesota market through the use of Google AdWords, specifically designed and calibrated to target potential Minnesota customers. Unlike its national television advertising campaign, MoneyMutual’s use of Google
AdWor ds was specific to Minnesota and, once again, demonstrates that MoneyMutual purposefully directed its conduct toward Minnesota , further buttressing the conclusion that sufficient minimum contacts exist for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over MoneyMu tual.28 IV. Finally, in light of our conclusion that sufficient minimum contacts exist, we must consider whether exercising personal jurisdiction over MoneyMutual in this case comport s with “ traditional notions of fa ir play and substantial justice.” Juelic h , 682 N.W.2d at 570 (citing Int’l Shoe , 326 U.S. at 316); see Burger King , 471 U.S. at 476

- 78. This “reasonableness” determination requires us to consider two factors: the interests of the forum state and the convenience of the parties. Juelich , 682 N.W .2d at 570. Here, the reasonableness factors also point toward the exercise of personal jurisdiction over MoneyMutual. Minnesota has a strong interest in protecting its residents from predatory lending, enforcing consumer protection laws, and providing a forum for litigating violations of its payday

- lending statutes. See, e.g. , SoftBrands Mfg., Inc. v. Missing Link Consulting, Inc. , No. Civ. 04

- 3900, 2004 WL 2944112, at *7 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2004) (“Minnesota has an interest in providing a forum for its citizens to

. . . enforce consumer protection suits.”); Kopperud v. Agers , 312 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Minn. 1981) (“ Minnesota has an obvious interest in providing a forum since Minnesotans were defrauded .”). In addition, Minnesota is a convenient forum for the respondents and class members, as they reside in Minnesota, their financial harm was suffered in Minnesota, and requiring them to travel outside of the state could exacerbate
their difficult financial situation

. MoneyMutual , on the other hand, does not p resent any arguments or evidence that litigating the class

- action claims in Minn esota would be inconvenient (likely because it argues that convenience is not a relevant factor under Minnesota law)

.29 V.

In conclusion, MoneyMutual had sufficient minimum co ntacts with Minnesota to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case. Additionally, subjecting MoneyMutual to suit in a Minnesota forum is reasonable and consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. As a result , the district court did not err when it denied MoneyMutual’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 19
Affirmed.

LILLEHAUG, CHUTICH, JJ., took no part in the conside ration or decision of this

case.

19 Although we conclude that there is a sufficient basis to assert personal jurisdiction in this case, we express no opinion as to the ultimate merit of respondents’ claims.