MoneyMutual, LLC v. Rilley, et al.

Case Updates

The Minnesota Supreme Court granted MoneyMutual’s petition for review and affirmed the appeals court decision, holding that specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant was proper based on the facts of the case. On the question whether a national advertising campaign, seen by plaintiffs in the forum state, could serve as the basis for establishing minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction, however, the court said, “Whether a national advertising campaign is a relevant contact for the purpose of establishing specific personal jurisdiction is a question of first impression in our court. … [W]e hold that a purely national advertising campaign that does not target Minnesota specifically cannot support a finding of personal jurisdiction. … As a result, MoneyMutual’s television advertisements are not relevant contacts for the purpose of our minimum contacts analysis.”

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court decision that erroneously subjected an out-of-state defendant to specific personal jurisdiction based on publicly accessible websites and national advertising that were not targeted at the forum state.

The amicus brief argued that the lower court’s approach to specific personal jurisdiction would improperly subject many e-commerce companies to universal personal jurisdiction in violation of the Due Process Clause. The brief also argued that such “universal jurisdiction” would impose unnecessary and excessive costs on businesses and their consumers by eliminating the stability resulting from predictable jurisdictional rules.

The U.S. Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.

Jenneane Jansen and Kris Palmer of Jansen & Palmser, LLC, as well as Andrew J. Pincus and Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber and Minnesota Chamber of Commerce in this case.