564 U.S. 915 (2011)
In April 2004, a bus carrying young soccer players from North Carolina overturned on a road outside Paris, France, killing two 13-year-old boys, Julian Brown and Matthew Helms.1 Their parents, acting as administrators of the boys' estates, filed a wrongful-death suit in the Superior Court of Onslow County, North Carolina, alleging negligence in the design, construction, testing, and inspection of a tire that failed during the trip.2
The defendants were The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, and three of its indirect subsidiaries incorporated and operating in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France.3 Goodyear USA maintained plants in North Carolina and did not contest personal jurisdiction, but the foreign subsidiaries moved to dismiss, asserting that North Carolina lacked authority over them.4
The foreign subsidiaries manufactured tires primarily for European and Asian markets, with tires differing in size and construction from those sold in the United States.5 They maintained no place of business, employees, or bank accounts in North Carolina, did not design, manufacture, advertise, or sell products there, and the specific Goodyear Regional RHS tire involved in the accident was never distributed in the state, although a small percentage of other tires they produced reached North Carolina through other Goodyear affiliates.6
The trial court denied the subsidiaries' motion to dismiss.7 The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling after finding that the subsidiaries' placement of tires into the stream of commerce supported the exercise of general jurisdiction.8 The North Carolina Supreme Court denied discretionary review.9 The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.10
Whether foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation are amenable to suit in state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State?11
A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.12 Specific jurisdiction depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy. Principally, this involves activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation.13
No. The foreign subsidiaries maintained no place of business, employees, or bank accounts in North Carolina and conducted no design, manufacturing, or advertising activities there.14 Their only tie consisted of a small percentage of tires reaching the state indirectly through other Goodyear affiliates, a connection far short of the continuous and systematic contacts required.15 The claims arise from an accident in France involving a tire manufactured in Turkey, confirming the absence of any forum-related occurrence that could support specific jurisdiction.16
The subsidiaries therefore lack the paradigm affiliations of incorporation or principal place of business in North Carolina and fall well below the Perkins benchmark of substantial wartime operations conducted in the forum.17 Sporadic sales through intermediaries do not create the at-home status necessary for general jurisdiction over unrelated claims.18
The foreign subsidiaries are not amenable to suit in North Carolina state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State.19