| If an individual conducts business over the internet with | | | | It is also likely that the facts of this case bring it within |
| a web-based company and the parties enter into an | | | | Section 3(d) of the long-arm statute as well. The first |
| agreement, and the company either breaches the | | | | element requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate that the |
| agreement or commits some form of fraudulent or | | | | Defendants' acts or omission caused tortious injury |
| deceptive business practice with the buyer, can the | | | | inside the Commonwealth. Cunningham v. Adrox. Inc., |
| buyer sue the company in his or her home state? The | | | | 40 Mass. App. Ct. 279, 281 (1996). The Plaintiff must |
| issue become even more complex or confusing if the | | | | next show that the Defendant regularly does or solicits |
| defendant's place of business is unknown, and all of | | | | business in this forum, or engages in any other |
| the Defendants business is conducted through the | | | | persistent course of conduct in Massachusetts, or |
| internet. Even given this complex and confusing | | | | derives substantial revenue from goods used or |
| situation, a court would likely allow the buyer to bring | | | | consumed or services rendered in Massachusetts. |
| suit in their home state holding that the court can | | | | Noonan v. Winston Co., 135 F.3d 85, 91 (1998). Internet |
| establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant. | | | | sites have been used as one factor in ascertaining |
| A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a | | | | whether the defendants are regularly soliciting business |
| person (or corporation), who acts directly or by an | | | | for purposes of Section 3 (d). Other courts have found |
| agent, as to a cause of action in law or equity arising | | | | that personal jurisdiction exists based on Internet Web |
| from the person's | | | | sites. Web Site Activities of Nonresident Person on |
| (a) transacting any business in Massachusetts | | | | Corporation as Conferring Personal Personal under |
| (b) contracting to supply services or things in the state | | | | Long-Arm Statutes and Due Process Clause, 81 A.L.R. |
| (c) causing tortuous injury by an act or omission in the | | | | 5th 41 (2000). A computer consulting company was |
| state | | | | found to regularly solicit business in this |
| (d) causing tortuous injury in the state by an act or | | | | Commonwealth, for purposes Section 3 (d) of the |
| omission outside this commonwealth if he regularly | | | | long-arm statute, where it maintained an internet web |
| does or solicits business, or engages in any other | | | | site that could be continuously accessed by |
| persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial | | | | Massachusetts residents, and a part of its advertising |
| revenue from goods used or consumed or services | | | | listed another Massachusetts company as one if its |
| rendered, in this commonwealth....G.L c. 223A, § 3 | | | | new customers, who had company name recognition |
| Pursuant to Section 3(a), the "transacting any business" | | | | in the Commonwealth. Hasbro Inc., v. Clue Computing, |
| clause, permits the court's exercise of jurisdiction "if the | | | | Inc., 994 F.Supp. 34, 39 (1997). |
| defendant...transacted any business in the | | | | Even if the literal requirements of the long-arm statute |
| Commonwealth, and if the alleged cause of action | | | | are satisfied, it also must be established that the |
| arose from such transaction of business." Good Hope | | | | exercise of jurisdiction under State law is consistent |
| Indus. v. Ryder Scott Co., 378 Mass. 1, 6 (1979). A | | | | with basic due process requirements mandated by the |
| person transacts business in the Commonwealth if | | | | United States Constitution. Tatro v. Manor Care Inc., |
| there are any "purposeful acts by an individual, | | | | 416 Mass. 767 (1994). Jurisdiction is proper if the |
| whether personal, private, or commercial." Ross v. | | | | defendants also had minimum contacts with the forum |
| Ross, 371 Mass. 439, 441 (1976). Actual physical | | | | state at the time of filing the complaint, such that the |
| presence of a defendant in this jurisdiction is not | | | | assertion of jurisdiction over defendants would not |
| required to acquire personal jurisdiction under the | | | | offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial |
| "transacting business" clause. Good Hope Indus., Inc. v. | | | | justice. Id. |
| Ryder Scott Co., 378 Mass. 1 (1979). | | | | |