Also known as: purposeful availment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard for specific personal jurisdiction requiring that the defendant deliberately reach out to the forum state by purposefully availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities there and thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The test ensures that jurisdiction arises from the defendant's own voluntary contacts rather than from the unilateral actions of the plaintiff or a third party. Foreseeability that a product or effect might enter the forum is insufficient without evidence of deliberate targeting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Prime Logistics sold a generator in State A to a buyer who later moved to State B and took the unit there. When the generator malfunctioned and injured the buyer in State B, the buyer sued Prime Logistics in State B court. The court found no purposeful availment because Prime Logistics had not directed any sales efforts or marketing toward State B and the product's presence resulted solely from the buyer's independent decision to relocate.
Pioneer Energy negotiated a long-term supply contract through repeated calls and emails directed to Paragon Construction's headquarters in State A. After disputes arose over performance, Paragon sued Pioneer Energy in State A. The court held that the repeated directed communications and acceptance of payments from State A bank accounts constituted purposeful availment of State A's market and laws.
Prosperity Investments maintained a website that accepted online reservations, provided State C-specific rate quotes, and offered driving directions from State C cities. A State C resident booked a service and later sued in State C for breach. The court concluded that the website's interactive features and deliberate marketing to State C residents satisfied the purposeful availment test.
Pablo Perez, a component manufacturer in State D, sold valves to an assembler in State E that incorporated them into finished products sold nationwide. One product reached State F and caused injury there. When sued in State F, Perez moved to dismiss. The court ruled that mere placement into the stream of commerce without any purposeful effort to serve State F failed the purposeful availment test.
Parker Phillips owned shares in a corporation whose officers were sued in State G over corporate decisions. The plaintiff attempted to base jurisdiction on the stock's presence in State G. The court rejected the claim because Phillips had taken no affirmative act to avail himself of State G's laws or protections beyond passive ownership.
Phoebe Park, a foreign parent company, maintained a U.S. subsidiary that sold vehicles in multiple states including State H. A State H resident injured by one vehicle sued the parent in State H. The court held that the parent's mere ownership of the subsidiary did not establish purposeful availment by the parent itself of State H's market.
No. The test focuses on the defendant's own deliberate conduct directed at the forum at the time of the relevant contacts. Unilateral relocation by the plaintiff after the relationship is formed cannot create the required minimum contacts.
It depends on whether the communications reflect deliberate targeting of the forum market rather than mere responses to the resident's initiative. Courts examine the volume, nature, and direction of the contacts to determine if the defendant invoked the forum's benefits and protections.
…with the State. Their decision to incorporate in Delaware was a matter of corporate law convenience and did not constitute purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Delaware. B The quasi in rem theory is equally unavailing. Under this theory, the Delaware courts asserted jurisdiction because the suit was…
…the requisite “affiliating circumstances” are present. Kulko v. California Superior Court , 436 U. S. 84, 92 (1978). This “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 465…
…that an unwavering line can be drawn between “mere awareness” that a component will find its way into the forum State and “purposeful availment
…Id. The court refused to exercise jurisdiction based on the Web site alone, reasoning that it did not rise to the level of purposeful availment
A website satisfies the test when it specifically targets forum residents through features such as accepting reservations, providing localized information, or running geo-targeted promotions that demonstrate an intent to serve the forum market.
No. The defendant must do something more than merely foresee that the product might reach the forum. It must purposefully direct activities toward the forum market or otherwise avail itself of the forum's laws.