The Internet has proven to be a tough field of play for personal injury attorneys and those clients who claim that they’ve been defamed by web postings.

The First Amendment protects the anonymity of defendants who post defamatory comments.

The federal Communications Decency Act immunizes the deep pockets.

Yesterday, plaintiff’s attorneys received some good news for a change.

Yes, one state supreme court dramatically lowered the bar for demonstrating personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who gripes over the Internet about a plaintiff’s business practices.

Engine block complaints

The case involved a rather mundane dispute over an MR-1 Pontiac engine block.

In 2006, Scott Roberts needed one. Roberts is a long-time resident of Virginia.

He discovered the engine block he needed advertised on the website of Kauffman Racing Equipment.

Kauffman Racing is an Ohio limited liability company that makes engine blocks and related high-performance automotive equipment.

Roberts purchased the Pontiac engine block from Kauffman Racing and had it shipped to him in Virginia.

Eight months later Roberts was not a happy customer. He claimed the engine block was defective.

Although the engine block had been sold “as-is,” Kauffman Racing agreed to have it shipped back to Ohio for inspection. If the company verified that the engine block was defective, the company would buy it back from Roberts.

Kauffman Racing inspected the engine block and determined that the problem was that Roberts had made substantial modifications to it.

So the company shipped it back to Roberts and told him he was out of luck.

This made Roberts very unhappy, so he went on a cyber-rampage in the fall of 2006, posting numerous negative comments about Kauffman Racing on various websites devoted to automobile racing equipment.

Roberts’ commentary appeared on the public-forum section of the websites PerformanceYears.com and PontiacStreetPerformance.com, and in an item description on the Internet auction website, eBay Motors.

In one post, Roberts said about his purchase of the engine block: “I guess it doesn’t matter that the day I got it all of the defects exsisted and nothing I have done caused them. But don’t worry about that. What I loose in dollars I will make up in entertainment at their expence.”

In another post, Roberts boasted that his criticism of Kauffman Racing was not designed “to get a resolution.” Instead, he said “I have a much bigger and dastardly plan than that and this is the perfect place to start.”

Part of that dastardly plan involved listing the engine block for sale on eBay.

In the item description, Roberts wrote that the service he received from Kauffman Racing was “less than honorable,” claiming that when he complained about the part he was basically given “the middle finger salute.”

In a post on another site, Roberts gave insight into his strategy for advertising the engine block on eBay.

“As far as the block on e-bay. Thats nothing more than getting the FACTS out to more people,” Roberts wrote. “Do you believe anyone will read that add and buy it? I can assure you this block issue is faaaaar from over. Do you think I would spread this around like I have and plan to if I thought I couldn’t back EVERYTHING up?”

Apart from being distressed by Roberts’ spelling and grammar issues, Kauffman Racing started to feel that the unhappy customer’s sniping might hurt its business.

According to Kauffman Racing, at least five Ohio customers raised the issue of Roberts’ Internet postings.

So the company sued in Ohio state court for defamation and tortious interference with its business relationships.

The trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the Ohio long-arm statute did not confer jurisdiction and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Roberts would deprive him of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Long-arm jurisdiction

Roberts argued that, as a Virginia resident, Ohio’s long-arm statute did not confer personal jurisdiction because he did not direct the alleged defamatory statements to Ohio or publish them in that state.

But yesterday the Ohio Supreme Court decided that what mattered was that the comments were received in Ohio by Ohio residents.

In reviving Kauffman Racing’s complaint, the court explained that “Roberts posted his allegedly defamatory statements on the Internet, ostensibly for the entire world to see. How much of the world saw the comments is unknown; but we do know that at least five Ohioans saw Roberts’s statements. The comments were thus published in Ohio.”

Moreover, the court concluded that Ohio’s long-arm statute conferred jurisdiction — even if his statements were not “published” within the state — based on evidence that Roberts had a reasonable expectation that he would inflict injury in Ohio.

“It is clear from the postings that Roberts’s statements were made with the purpose of injuring [Kauffman Racing],” the court said. “Therefore, the long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Roberts in Ohio.”

Due process

Next up for the Ohio Supreme Court was the issue of due process.

The court concluded that due process was satisfied because Roberts had minimum contacts with Ohio, satisfying “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

The court said that the minimum contacts requirement was met because Robert “purposefully availed” himself of the privilege of conducting activities within Ohio.

“The allegedly defamatory communications concerned [Kauffman Racing’s] activities in Ohio,” the court said. “We are not dealing with a situation in which jurisdiction is premised on a single, isolated transaction. The posts detailed the transactions between Roberts and [Kauffman Racing]. …

“Moreover, the purchase of the engine block and subsequent transfers from Virginia to Ohio and back again served as the foundation from which this dispute arose. Roberts’s allegedly defamatory posts were predicated on his course of dealing with an Ohio resident corporation.”

The court concluded on a strident note, saying it would not “allow a nonresident defendant to take advantage of the conveniences that modern technology affords and simultaneously be shielded from the consequences of his intentionally tortious conduct.” (Kauffman Racing Equipment v. Roberts)

O’Donnell dissents

Justice Terrence O’Donnell, in a compelling dissent, complained that “the majority has extended the personal jurisdiction of Ohio courts to cover any individual in any state who purchases a product from an Ohio company and posts a criticism of it on the Internet with the intent to damage the seller. This holding changes long-arm jurisdiction dramatically.”

The justice expressed deep skepticism with the majority’s conclusion that Roberts had minimum contacts with Ohio sufficient to satisfy due process.

O’Donnell explained that “Roberts posted his comments on three general auto-racing websites and an auction site, none of which have any specific connection to Ohio or are more likely to be viewed by a resident of Ohio than by a resident of any other state. …

“By merely posting to general websites, Roberts neither deliberately engaged in significant activities within Ohio nor purposefully directed his activities at an Ohio resident sufficient to establish minimum contacts and satisfy due process — regardless of his intent.”

O’Donnell questioned how the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case satisfied due process concerns.

“Subjecting all individuals to suit in Ohio who post Internet reviews — no matter how scathing — of purchases made from Ohio companies does not comport with the due process notions of ‘fair play and substantial justice,'” he wrote.

– Pat Murphy

patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com