Also known as: stream of commerce analysis · stream-of-commerce theory · stream of commerce
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An analytical framework in personal jurisdiction cases that determines whether a foreign defendant's placement of goods into the stream of commerce creates minimum contacts with the forum state. The framework requires purposeful targeting of the specific forum rather than mere awareness that products might reach it through nationwide distribution. Jurisdiction is unreasonable when the defendant faces severe burdens and the forum has only slight interests in the dispute.
Solstice Ventures, a Taiwanese valve maker, sold components to a Japanese tire company that assembled products sold in California. After a California accident, the Japanese firm sought indemnity from Solstice in California court. Solstice had no direct California sales or marketing and faced heavy litigation burdens with minimal forum interest in the indemnity claim.
Sterling Manufacturing, a British machine producer, sold equipment to a U.S. distributor for nationwide sale. One machine reached New Jersey and injured a worker there. Sterling had no New Jersey advertising, sales agents, or design adjustments for that state and treated the entire United States as a single market.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Silverline Industries manufactured tires in Turkey that entered North Carolina through an independent distributor. Two residents died in an accident there involving the tires. Silverline maintained no North Carolina offices or direct sales and the tires reached the state solely through ordinary distribution channels.
Synergy Systems, a German automaker, maintained a U.S. subsidiary with California sales. Argentine plaintiffs sued in California over events occurring entirely in Argentina. Synergy had no California operations tied to the claims and its subsidiary activities did not render it at home in the forum.
A manufacturing company engaged in interstate production and distribution of goods. The National Labor Relations Board asserted regulatory authority over the company's labor practices because its operations affected interstate commerce.
Sarah Sullivan bought a car in New York that later caused an accident in Oklahoma. The regional distributor had no Oklahoma sales efforts and the single vehicle reached the state through a consumer's unilateral move rather than any targeted distribution.
No. Mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce with awareness it may reach the forum state is not alone a clearly sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. The defendant must purposefully target the specific forum state rather than the national market generally.
Supporting sources
Jurisdiction is unreasonable when an indemnity suit between foreign corporations involves minimal forum interests, severe burdens on the foreign defendant, and only slight interest by the forum in adjudicating the dispute.
Supporting sources
Flow of a manufacturer's products into the forum may support specific jurisdiction when the defendant targets the market there. The same flow does not create general jurisdiction because it does not render the defendant at home in the forum.
Supporting sources
…powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State. Cf. Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. , 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N. E. 2d 761 (1961). But…