TV Azteca v. Ruiz
490 S.W.3d 29
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Trevino, a Texas resident, sued Mexican broadcasters TV Azteca, Publimax, and Chapoy for defamation based on Ventaneando broadcasts.
- Petitioners are Mexican nationals with no Texas offices or employees, but broadcasts originated in Mexico and were viewable in parts of Texas via over-the-air signals and cable spillover.
- Trevino alleged the broadcasts harmed her in Texas and she viewed them in Texas.
- Lower court denied special appearances; the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review to address jurisdiction from broadcasts originating outside Texas.
- Court analyzes Texas’ long-arm jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, and fair-play considerations.
- The core issue is whether Texas courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over foreign broadcasters whose broadcasts travel into Texas and who allegedly targeted Texas for advertising and distribution purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over Petitioners | Trevino argues Petitioners purposefully availed Texas. | Petitioners contend mere broadcast into Texas isn’t purposeful availment. | Yes for Petitioners; purposeful availment shown. |
| Whether Petitioners’ Texas broadcasts arise from their Texas contacts | Trevino links claims to Petitioners’ Texas activities. | Argues not sufficiently related to Texas contacts. | Yes; claims arise from Petitioners’ Texas broadcasts. |
| Whether knowledge of Texas viewership suffices for jurisdiction | Trevino argues knowledge of Texas viewership supports targeting. | Knowledge alone insufficient without intent to serve Texas market. | Knowledge plus additional targeted conduct supports jurisdiction. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice | Texas interest in redressing injuries to Texans justifies jurisdiction. | Foreign-broadcasting burdens international relations and foreign broadcasters. | Exercise of jurisdiction satisfies due process and fairness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (continuous exploitation of a market supports jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (focus on California as focal point of story and harm)
- Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (limits of directed-at-plaintiff approach; focus on forum contacts)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (jurisdiction based on defendant’s forum-directed conduct only)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (additional conduct may indicate intent to serve market; stream of commerce analogy)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (purposeful availment principles; forum contacts must be purposeful)