Lynn Fitch, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel., the State of Mississippi and Commissioner of Revenue Herb Frierson and Mississippi Department of Revenue v. Wine Express Inc., Bottle Deals Inc. and Gold Medal Wine Club, 297 So.3d 224

Background

Mississippi (Attorney General and Department of Revenue) sued Wine Express, Gold Medal Wine Club, and Bottle Deals for selling and directing shipment of alcoholic beverages to Mississippi residents via interactive websites without Mississippi permits and outside the State’s three-tier distribution system.
State alleged thousands of bottles were shipped into Mississippi, unpaid sales/excise taxes and unrealized wholesale markup, and sought injunction, disgorgement, monetary relief, fees, and punitive damages.
Defendants are New York or California corporations with no physical presence, argued all sales were completed and title passed F.O.B. outside Mississippi, and that buyers assumed responsibility for shipments.
Trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on FOB/title-passage and that transactions were completed outside Mississippi.
Mississippi Supreme Court reversed: held defendants’ interactive, commercial websites created a virtual presence and sufficient sales to invoke the long-arm statute and satisfy constitutional due-process jurisdictional requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Mississippi long-arm "doing business" provision	Defendants operated interactive, commercial websites that sold to MS residents; thus they did business in Mississippi under §13-3-57	No physical presence or permits in MS; sales processed and title passed outside MS, so not doing business in MS	Doing-business prong applies: virtual stores and repeated online sales subject defendants to long-arm jurisdiction
Minimum contacts / purposeful availment via websites	Defendants purposefully availed themselves of MS market by knowingly allowing MS residents to order, process payments, send confirmations, calculate shipping to MS ZIP codes, and make repeated sales	Contracts were one-time FOB sales; title passed outside MS, so defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of MS	Minimum contacts satisfied: defendants stood ready and did business with MS residents (Zippo/totality analysis applies)
Effect of F.O.B. / title-passage terms on jurisdiction	F.O.B. language cannot shield defendants from jurisdiction where quantity and regularity of sales show purposeful availment	FOB terms transfer title and shipping responsibility to buyer, which defeats contacts with MS	FOB terms do not defeat jurisdiction when other factors (regular, repeated sales into the forum) show purposeful availment (followed Luv N’ Care)
Fair play and substantial justice (reasonableness)	Mississippi has a strong interest in policing unlawful liquor sales into the State; plaintiff seeks relief from its own government agencies	Defendants did not assert substantial burden defending in MS	Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable: no undue burden on defendants shown; State’s interest and efficient resolution support jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (establishes purposeful availment/fair warning framework for minimum contacts)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (foundational due-process standard for personal jurisdiction)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (contacts must make it foreseeable to be haled into forum)
McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (a single purposeful contact can suffice for jurisdiction when related to the claim)
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (sliding-scale test for Internet contacts)
Mink v. AAAA Dev., LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) (discusses Zippo adoption in Fifth Circuit context)
Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010) (totality-of-circumstances approach finding jurisdiction over Internet seller that knowingly sold into the forum)
Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2006) (FOB terms do not necessarily defeat jurisdiction when shipments are frequent and purposeful)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (framework for reasonableness and fair play factors)