114 F.4th 181
3rd Cir.2024Background
- Two class actions were dismissed by District Courts for lack of personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania: Hasson v. FullStory, Inc. and Schnur v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc.
- Plaintiffs alleged unlawful wiretapping and invasion of privacy due to the use of "Session Replay Code"—a software tool capturing detailed user interactions without the user’s knowledge.
- FullStory (a Georgia-based software provider) was sued for its code's use on Mattress Firm’s website; Papa Johns (also Georgia-based, with numerous PA locations) was sued for deploying this code on its own website.
- District Courts held neither defendant expressly aimed tortious conduct at Pennsylvania under the Calder “effects” test and, for Papa Johns, also found no specific jurisdiction under the traditional purposeful availment test.
- The appeals concerned whether deploying tracking software accessible in Pennsylvania creates sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants.
- The Third Circuit joined the appeals for decision and affirmed dismissal as to Papa Johns but vacated and remanded Hasson’s case for the District Court to apply the traditional jurisdiction test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deploying Session Replay Code supports PA jurisdiction | Code was used on PA residents, causing in-forum harm; should suffice. | Website/code were not expressly aimed at PA, just generally accessible. | No express aiming; mere accessibility and harm in forum not sufficient. |
| Applicability of Calder vs. traditional test for intentional torts | Traditional test should also apply, not just Calder ("effects") test. | Only Calder "effects" test applies to intentional tort claims. | Both tests should be considered; "effects" is not exclusive for such claims. |
| Whether jurisdiction exists over Papa Johns under traditional test | Papa Johns purposefully availed itself of PA market via physical/online sales. | Claims don’t relate to PA contacts; website not specifically promoted in PA | No strong connection between PA, Papa Johns’ website, and litigation. |
| Whether jurisdiction exists over FullStory under Calder/traditional | FullStory knew it collected PA users’ data, did business with PA companies. | FullStory provided code to Mattress Firm (TX), no forum-centric targeting. | No express aiming under Calder; remand to consider traditional test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 ("effects" test for specific jurisdiction over intentional torts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment/minimum contacts standard)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 ("arise out of or relate to" and strong relationship requirement for specific jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (foundational case on personal jurisdiction and due process)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 ("reasonably anticipate being haled into court" standard)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (traditional test can apply to intentional torts)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (interactive websites and specific jurisdiction in Third Circuit)
- Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248 (application of "effects" test for online torts)
- Hepp v. Facebook, 14 F.4th 204 (requirements for relatedness in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141 (tortious acts committed in forum support personal jurisdiction)