Opinion ID: 602
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MMC Website

Text: Cossaboon contends that MMC's user-friendly and interactive website, www.mmc.org, supports the exercise of general jurisdiction. It is clear that the mere existence of a website that is visible in a forum and that gives information about a company and its products is not enough, by itself, to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in that forum. McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107, 124 (1st Cir.2005) (addressing analogous issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction under the Lanham Act). Given the omnipresence of internet websites, such a rule would eviscerate the limits on personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. Id. Instead, for website activity to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction, [s]omething more is necessary, such as interactive features which allow the successful online ordering of the defendant's products. Id. In addressing what more is required to support the exercise of general jurisdiction based on website activity, courts have focused on the extent to which the defendant has actually and purposefully conducted commercial or other transactions with forum state residents through its website. See, e.g., Dagesse v. Plant Hotel N.V., 113 F.Supp.2d 211, 223 (D.N.H.2000) ([A] proper analysis of the jurisdictional effects of an internet web site must focus on whether the defendant has actually and deliberately used its website to conduct commercial transactions or other activities with residents of the forum.); Coastal Video Commc'ns Corp. v. Staywell Corp., 59 F.Supp.2d 562, 571-72 (E.D.Va.1999) (finding the mere existence of an interactive website insufficient to support general jurisdiction); 4A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, supra, § 1073.1. We employed such an analysis in Harlow, reasoning that the hospital's website, although accessible in the forum state, did not support a finding of general jurisdiction because the hospital did not actually do business through its website. 432 F.3d at 65-66. Cossaboon emphasizes that MMC's website is not purely informational, but has interactive features. The website permits users to make online donations, complete patient pre-registration, register for classes, find a doctor, and apply for employment. Although it has these interactive features, MMC's website does not sell or render services online. Instead, the site is primarily informational and discusses the healthcare services provided at MMC's facility in Maine. Moreover, MMC's website is available to anyone with internet access and does not target New Hampshire residents in particular. Although MMC's interactive website advertises MMC's services and may increase the chance that users turn to MMC for their healthcare needs, that is no more true of New Hampshire residents than it is of any other visitors to the website. The mere fact that such an interactive site is accessible in New Hampshire does not indicate that MMC purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to do business in New Hampshire. Cossaboon asserts that MMC's website is designed to reach and appeal to New Hampshire residents specifically. However, she points only to evidence that a keyword search of MMC's site for New Hampshire yields four web pages that mention the state. [4] These four stray references to New Hampshire on MMC's website do not indicate that MMC intentionally uses its website to target New Hampshire residents. Indeed, the homepage of MMC's website does not mention New Hampshire at all but instead focuses on MMC's services to the Portland area and the state of Maine, stating that MMC fills a dual role: it is Maine's premier referral hospital, offering services not available elsewhere in the state, and it is a community hospital serving the greater Portland region. MMC's website, although available to New Hampshire residents, is not purposefully directed toward them. [5]