Opinion ID: 1610239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Relevant Case Law Applying Section 48.193(1)(b) to the World Wide Web

Text: The question of whether a posting on a website, which is located on the World Wide Web, constitutes an electronic communication into Florida is a more difficult one than telephone calls, e-mails, chat rooms, and facsimiles because the posting is typically accessible from any state and is not directed by the alleged tortfeasor into a particular forum in the same way as a phone call, letter, e-mail, chat room, or facsimile. As explained by a Connecticut court, Unlike the letter or e-mail cases, a posting on a website is not sent anywhere in particular, but rather can be accessed from anywhere in the world. Rios v. Fergusan, 51 Conn.Supp. 212, 978 A.2d 592, 598 (2008) (quoting Dailey v. Popma, 191 N.C.App. 64, 662 S.E.2d 12, 19 (2008)). Whereas telephone calls, letters, e-mails, chat rooms, and facsimiles are easily analyzed as to whether the communication was sent into Florida, the World Wide Web is a more pervasive and complicated communication medium for the purpose of contemplating whether there is a communication into the state. A brief overview of the nature of the Internet and the World Wide Web is helpful. At the outset, it is important to note that the Internet and the World Wide Web are not synonymous. The Internet is the world's largest computer network. Christopher W. Meyer, Note, World Wide Web Advertising: Personal Jurisdiction Around the Whole Wide World?, 54 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 1269, 1275-76 (1997). There are multiple ways to transmit and receive information across the Internet, including e-mails, chat rooms, and the World Wide Web. See id. [T]he Web constitutes the body of information available, and the Internet refers only to the means by which one can access that information. Todd A. Nist, Note, Finding the Right Approach: A Constitutional Alternative for Shielding Kids from Harmful Materials Online, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 451, 456 n. 27 (2004). Individuals commonly access the Internet through a commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP) and then use a browser to access resources and information on the World Wide Web. Lora M. Jennings, Note, Finding Legal Certainty for E-Commerce: Traditional Personal Jurisdiction and the Scope of the Zippo Sliding Scale, 44 Washburn L.J. 381, 386 (2005) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted). The World Wide Web, which has become one of the most popular and most used Internet programs, has been further explained as follows: The World Wide Web consists of a vast number of documents stored in different computers located throughout the world. The technology underlying the World Wide Web created links between individual computers so that documents, audio, and video files can be accessed from anywhere on the Internet. To access information located on the World Wide Web, a user may enter the exact known Internet address of a specific Web page into the browser or use a search engine. Additionally, a user may navigate the World Wide Web by accessing a series of hyperlinks. Because this structure facilitates easy access to information stored throughout the world, the World Wide Web has become one of the most popular and most used Internet programs. Id. With the unique context of the Web in mind, we now review the cases that have applied section 48.193(1)(b) in this context. In Renaissance Health Publ'g, LLC v. Resveratrol Partners, LLC, 982 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), a Florida corporation sued the nonresident defendants for trade libel and two related statutory violations, all arising from statements made on the defendants' website allegedly disparaging the plaintiff corporation's products. Id. at 740. The complaint alleged that the defendant sold publications about food supplements (both in a traditional paper format and as e-books) and falsely and intentionally disparaged the quality of the plaintiff corporation's product (a red wine extract). Id. at 742. The Fourth District began by referring to its Becker decision. Id. (citing Becker, 841 So.2d at 563). The court then held that the statements on the website constituted a tortious act committed in Florida, reasoning that [t]he defendants' interactive web site which sells product to Florida residents is akin to the chat room in Becker.  Id. Thus, [a]pplying Wendt and Becker,  the court held that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the Florida long-arm statute. Id. The court appeared to focus on the fact that the comments posted in the chat room in Becker were targeted at Florida residents or people likely to seek medical care in Florida as well as the fact that the website in Renaissance was interactive and sold products to Florida residents, presumably reasoning that the website was targeted at Florida residents or people likely to purchase the plaintiff's product in Florida. Although no other Florida courts have addressed this issue, federal district courts interpreting Florida's long-arm statute have confronted the issue. In Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 347 F.Supp.2d 1242 (M.D.Fla.2004), the federal district court examined whether the defendant's website was passive or active in order to resolve the issue. The difference between a passive website and an active website has been described as follows: A passive web site only makes information available to those interested in viewing the web site in foreign jurisdictions whereas an active web site allows for those interested in foreign jurisdictions to enter into contracts over the Internet with the defendant. Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc. v. Women's United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1329 (S.D.Fla.2001). In Whitney, the plaintiffs filed a complaint for, inter alia, defamation, alleging that defendants operated a website, www. ripoffreport.com, the purpose of which was to publish consumer complaints, which the defendants actively solicited, and to imply that the company named in the complaint was ripping off consumers. 347 F.Supp.2d at 1243. The defendants also allegedly advertised items for sale and solicited donations from consumers. Id. While on the www.ripoffreport.com website, a consumer could click on a link to a second website, www.ripoffrevenge.com, at which defendants sold either a service or do-it-yourself kits. Id. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants published more than a dozen false stories about them and subjected them to false and defamatory articles. Id. at 1243-44. The federal district court held that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to satisfy section 48.193(1)(b), stating: While ... Xcentric does not transact any business, have any agents in Florida, or maintain any offices in Florida, this is not determinative under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(b). Its website www. ripoffreport.com allows consumers to target an individual state by inviting them to Pick any state! for information. The website promises to contact individual consumers with certain information (We will contact you if a lawsuit is being considered or has been filed which you may want to be a party to), e-mail victims to contact other victims and attorneys interested in pursuing class action lawsuits, and to put consumers in contact with the media. The website asserts that it has assisted, and continues to assist, many government agencies from around the country, and that many television stations from all around the country come to the Ripoff Report for information. The website offers businesses the opportunity to file a rebuttal to any report it publishes. The website ran at least nine reports concerning plaintiffs' activities in Florida, and specifically solicited information from the named business in a Rebuttal Box on the website. The website sold advertising space, and solicited advertisers with reduced rates and a feature which allowed them to Pick any state! In an example of its advertising service, the website specifically referred to advertising business in Florida and the presence of reports from Florida. Id. at 1244-45 (record references omitted). The court concluded that these facts were sufficient to satisfy the Florida long-arm statute, reasoning that [t]he activity takes defendants' conduct beyond a mere passive website, and allows the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction. Id. at 1245 (citing Toys R Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3rd Cir.2003); Nw. Healthcare Alliance, Inc. v. Healthgrades.com, Inc., 50 F. App'x. 339 (9th Cir.2002)). Other federal district court cases have discussed the issue without an analysis of whether the website was passive or active. In Alternate Energy Corp. v. Redstone, 328 F.Supp.2d 1379 (S.D.Fla.2004), the plaintiff, a non-Florida resident, brought suit, alleging claims for libel, slander, defamation, and violations of state law, arising out of information published on the nonresident defendant's website. Id. at 1381. The defendant published an independent Internet website that monitored the hydrogen fuel cell industry. Id. Part of the defendant's website was open to the public, but the remainder was available to subscribers only; the defendant did not sell merchandise through his website, which offered only information. Id. According to the complaint, the defendant harmed the plaintiff by publishing negative information on the restricted portion of the defendant's website. Id. The defendant sold a small number of the subscriptions to the restricted portion of the website to Florida residents. Id. at 1383. The court held that long-arm jurisdiction under 48.193(1)(b) was not proper, finding that selling subscriptions to an internet site to an unknown, relatively small number of Florida residents, without more, does not... constitute the commission of a tortious act in Florida under § 48.193(1)(b). Alternate Energy Corp., 328 F.Supp.2d at 1383. The court distinguished the case from Becker and Wendt because they involved instances where Florida courts found that personal jurisdiction existed under § 48.193(1)(b). However, the fact that the plaintiffs in both Becker and Wendt were Florida residents and the defendants had specifically targeted their actions toward the state of Florida factored prominently into the respective courts' determinations that the out-of-state defendants had allegedly committed tortious acts in Florida. Conversely, in the instant case, Plaintiff is an out-of-state resident, and there is no indication that Defendant's actions caused more harm to Plaintiff in Florida than anywhere else. Id. at 1384 (citations omitted). In a recent case, Richards v. Sen, No. 07-14254-CIV, 2008 WL 4889623 (S.D.Fla. Nov.12, 2008), the federal district court focused only on whether a posting on a website was an electronic communication accessible to Florida residents, id. at , not whether the nonresident defendants intended for the communication to be directed at Florida residents. In that case, the plaintiffs brought suit for, inter alia, defamation, slander of title, and injurious falsehood claims. Id. The plaintiffs' claims appeared to be based on the defendants' filing of a patent application that led to the Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) issuance of a patent; the plaintiffs contended that the application tortiously omitted them as inventors or assignees. Id. The federal district court stated that Florida's long-arm statute enables the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant for defamation, slander and libel claims when the injurious information or material is circulated or published to a third party within the state. Id. Accordingly, the court held that, assuming that the statements were sufficient to support the alleged causes of action, the PTO's publication of the [patent] on the internet is sufficient to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute because publication of the allegedly injurious statements and omissions is an electronic communication accessible to Florida residents. Id. (citing § 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Wendt, 822 So.2d at 1253). The court concluded, however, that the exercise of jurisdiction would not comport with due process, because the defendants did not have fair warning that filing the patent application, which led to the PTO's subsequent grant of the [patent], would subject them to suit in Florida. ... Defendants did not purposely direct any activity towards Florida by filing the [patent] application. Id. at . A review of the relevant case law reveals that courts interpreting Florida law in the context of the Web have applied differing approaches. Some courts appear to have interpreted Wendt's statement that `committing a tortious act' in Florida under section 48.193(1)(b) can occur through the nonresident defendant's telephonic, electronic, or written communications into Florida, 822 So.2d at 1260, as requiring that the defendant direct the communications into Florida or otherwise target Florida. Renaissance Health Publ'g, LLC, 982 So.2d at 740 (interactive website that sells product to Florida residents targeted Florida residents); see Whitney Info. Network, Inc., 347 F.Supp.2d at 1245 (defendant's website was not a mere passive website). At least one other court, however, has taken a far more expansive view by holding that merely posting material online is an electronic communication accessible to Florida residents. Richards, 2008 WL 4889623, at . Having reviewed the relevant case law interpreting section 48.193(1)(b), we now turn to an analysis of when a nonresident defendant commits the tortious act of defamation within Florida in the unique context of the Web.