253 F. Supp. 3d 1149
S.D. Fla.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Gubarev, XBT Holding, and Webzilla) allege BuzzFeed and its Editor‑in‑Chief Smith published an online article attaching a 35‑page unverified dossier that included allegedly defamatory statements about Plaintiffs. Publication occurred January 10, 2017, on BuzzFeed’s website and mobile app.
- Plaintiffs allege BuzzFeed knew reasons to distrust the dossier but published it without contacting Plaintiffs or redacting their names. Webzilla is a Florida corporation with operations/contacts in Florida; other plaintiffs are foreign or out‑of‑state.
- Plaintiffs sued in Broward County, Florida, for defamation. Defendants removed to federal court based on diversity and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The jurisdictional question focused on whether Florida’s long‑arm statute and Due Process permit specific personal jurisdiction over defendants for online publication accessible and accessed in Florida.
- The court concluded Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) (tortious act in Florida via electronic publication) and that exercising jurisdiction satisfied the Calder effects test and traditional minimum‑contacts analysis; dismissal was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193 for online defamation | Publication of the article/dossier was accessed in Florida and thus is a tortious act in Florida; Webzilla has physical presence in Florida | Mere global accessibility of a website is insufficient; plaintiffs lack meaningful Florida connection (except corporate incorporation) | Court: Long‑arm statute satisfied; prima facie case that defendants committed a tort in Florida via web publication; jurisdiction proper |
| Due process — Calder "effects" test (intent, aiming, foreseeable harm) | Dossier intentionally published, named a Florida corporation, and defendants should foresee harm in Florida | Article’s focal point was national (Trump‑Russia), not aimed at Florida; mere website access insufficient to show aiming or foreseeability | Court: Calder satisfied — publication intentionally aimed at plaintiffs (including Florida plaintiff) and harm was foreseeable in Florida |
| Due process — traditional minimum contacts / Keeton analysis | BuzzFeed has extensive Florida contacts (reporting, targeted content, Florida advertisers, employees sent to Florida) making forum foreseeable | BuzzFeed lacks offices/employees in Florida and did not specifically target Florida for this article | Court: Minimum contacts satisfied; BuzzFeed’s regular Florida‑oriented activities and circulation support jurisdiction |
| Motion to transfer under § 1404(a) to S.D.N.Y. | Plaintiffs prefer Florida; Webzilla is in Florida; transfer would shift inconvenience to plaintiffs | Most witnesses and documents are in New York; New York is more convenient | Court: Transfer denied. Factors (witness convenience, documents, locus, process, forum familiarity, efficiency) did not clearly outweigh plaintiffs’ chosen forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (posting allegedly defamatory material on a website accessible in Florida constitutes electronic communication into Florida and a tortious act when accessed in Florida)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff bears initial burden to allege prima facie jurisdiction; due process three‑part specific jurisdiction test)
- Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1990) (distribution of defamatory material in Florida supports exercise of jurisdiction under long‑arm statute)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test: intentional act, aimed at the forum, causing foreseeable harm there)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (national circulation subjects publisher to suit in forums where circulated)
- Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2008) (Calder effects test satisfied where defendant used plaintiff’s identity on a website accessible in Florida)
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) (choice of governing defamation law depends on which forum has the most significant relationship to the dispute)