Defendant (California corp) is in beta-testing phase. For now, it allows users to download its software and embed it on their own sites (the software is a comments plug-in). Several New Yorkers have become registered users (and presumably have downloaded the s/w). Defendant will ultimately monetize by charging users and/or selling ads.
Held: No personal jurisdiction in NY as money hasn’t changed hands.
Hmmm. Defendant allows New Yorkers to try out the software on their (presumably) NY sites. Is there really a different ‘foreseeability of getting hauled into New York’ because money has not yet changed hands, or because they haven’t sold advertising yet?
What if Defendant was mailing free samples of a physical product into NY? Would (should) the absence of a monetary exchange matter for purposes of jurisdictional due process?
bark v barc personal
var docstoc_docid=”158993205″;var docstoc_title=”bark v barc personal”;var docstoc_urltitle=”bark v barc personal”;