The Court of Appeals held on June 17, 2008 in Dailey v. Popma that a defendant’s Internet postings, even though available in North Carolina and causing injury in North Carolina, aren’t sufficient for personal jurisdiction unless the postings are "targeted" to residents of the State.
In Dailey, the plaintiff claimed that Popma had posted statements about him on the Internet accusing him of theft, embezzlement, and being the "equivalent" of a child molester, among others.
Popma asserted that the postings had been made by him in Georgia, and that the North Carolina courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him.
The Court held, relying on Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1035, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1065, 123 S. Ct. 2092 (2003), that "the dispositive question in such cases should be whether the defendant ‘through the Internet postings, manifest[ed] an intent to target and focus on [the forum state’s] readers.’"
After assessing the record, the Court found that plaintiff had "failed to establish that defendant posted the material in the bulletin board discussions with the intent to direct his content to a North Carolina audience" and that there was no basis for personal jurisdiction.
The Dailey decision isn’t the first time the Court of Appeals has addressed the interplay between personal jurisdiction and the Internet. In 2005, in Havey v.Valentine, 172 N.C. App. 812, 616 S.E.2d 642 (2005), the Court of Appeals had adopted the Fourth Circuit’s analysis in ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105, 154 L. Ed. 2d 773, 123 S. Ct. 868 (2003).
The ALS formulation calls for the Court to consider whether the Defendant (1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State’s courts.
The decision in Havey also established that "a person who simply places information on the Internet does not subject himself to jurisdiction in each State into which the electronic signal is transmitted and received." That the postings have an effect on a North Carolina resident is not enough to support jurisdiction.