Opinion ID: 2833512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stream of Commerce

Text: In the context of product sales, a nonresident need not have offices or employees in a forum state in order to meet the purposeful availment test. In International Shoe Co. v. Washington , a nonresident corporation had neither offices nor inventory in the state of Washington, but did have a dozen resident salesmen on commission who exhibited samples, solicited orders, and transmitted them to other states for shipment to resident consumers. [35] The operation of a sales and distribution network rendered the nonresident subject to the state’s jurisdiction. [36] Thus, a nonresident that directs marketing efforts to Texas in the hope of soliciting sales is subject to suit here in disputes arising from that business. Advertising in telephone directories in Texas cities, [37] operating an office for sales information and support, [38] and certain activities over the Internet [39] all meet this standard. It is less clear whether a nonresident “purposefully avails” itself of a forum when it benefits from a major market without doing any of the marketing. Almost twenty years ago, four justices of the United States Supreme Court held that a nonresident’s mere awareness that thousands of its products were ultimately being sold in the forum state established purposeful availment ; [40] four others held that “additional conduct” was required (e.g., designing the product for or advertising it in the forum State); [41] the ninth held that, assuming “additional conduct” was required, regular sales resulting in thousands of products reaching the forum state over many years would suffice “[ i ]n most circumstances.” [42] Since that time, we have noted that our cases appear to follow the “additional conduct” standard. [43] Thus, for example, we have held that shipping hundreds of tons of raw asbestos to Houston was insufficient to establish jurisdiction absent evidence that a nonresident participated in the decision to send it there. [44] Whichever of these standards is ultimately correct, Michiana’s conduct meets none of them. Michiana did not place large numbers of RVs in a “stream of commerce” flowing to Texas; as we have noted before, stream-of-commerce jurisdiction requires a stream, not a dribble. [45] Nor is there any evidence of any “additional conduct” C Michiana did not design, advertise, or distribute RVs in Texas. Exercising jurisdiction here would go far beyond anything we have approved in other commercial cases.