Also known as:stream of commerce rule · stream-of-commerce doctrine · stream of commerce doctrine · stream of commerce
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine in the law of personal jurisdiction holding that a nonresident defendant's mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce does not by itself establish the minimum contacts necessary for a court to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process. The defendant must purposefully target the forum state rather than merely the national market. Additional fairness factors may render jurisdiction unreasonable when the defendant is foreign and the forum's interest is slight.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Foreign Supplier Indemnity Dispute
Synergy Systems, a Swiss corporation, sold specialized components to a French manufacturer that incorporated them into finished goods distributed across a mid-Atlantic state. Patients injured by the goods sued the French company in state court, prompting an indemnity action against Synergy Systems. The Swiss firm moved to dismiss, arguing that its awareness of possible distribution did not amount to purposeful targeting of the forum and that litigating an indemnity claim as a foreign defendant imposed severe burdens with minimal forum interest.
National Market Placement Only
Sterling Dynamics, a British manufacturer, produced industrial machinery and sold it to a U.S. distributor that resold units nationwide. A machine reached a buyer in State X and caused injury, leading to suit there. Sterling Dynamics had no advertising, sales agents, or other efforts directed specifically at State X and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Interstate Product Flow Challenge
Southland Foods shipped perishable goods through multiple states using independent carriers. A shipment reached a retailer in State Y where a consumer suffered injury and sued Southland Foods. The company maintained no direct sales force or targeted promotions in State Y and contested jurisdiction on the ground that nationwide distribution alone failed to create the required contacts.
Chemical Shipment Liability Suit
Sentinel Security arranged transport of industrial chemicals that passed through several jurisdictions before reaching a buyer in State Z. An accident occurred at the destination site, prompting a products claim against Sentinel Security. The firm had no offices, agents, or marketing aimed at State Z and asserted that simple placement into interstate channels did not support jurisdiction.
Tire Distribution Targeting Dispute
Solomon Silver purchased tires manufactured abroad that reached State W through a national retail chain. After an accident, he sued the foreign producer in State W court. The manufacturer sold only to a U.S. importer and conducted no State W-specific advertising or sales efforts, prompting a motion to dismiss based on insufficient forum targeting.
Automotive Parts Forum Reach
Simon Stern bought a vehicle assembled with parts from a foreign supplier that had no direct presence in State V. An accident in State V led to suit against the supplier, which sold components exclusively to an automaker with nationwide dealerships. The supplier maintained no State V facilities or promotions and moved to dismiss, contending that general awareness of U.S. distribution did not establish purposeful contacts.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does mere awareness that a product might reach the forum state establish personal jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce rule?+
No. The Supreme Court has held that awareness alone is insufficient. The defendant must purposefully direct activities toward the specific forum state rather than merely placing goods into a national distribution network.
Supporting sources
When is exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable even if minimum contacts appear to exist?+
Jurisdiction may be unreasonable when the defendant is a foreign corporation facing an indemnity claim from another foreign entity, the burdens of litigation in the forum are severe, and the forum state's interest in the dispute is slight.
Supporting sources
How does the stream-of-commerce rule interact with the requirement that a seller be engaged in the business of selling the product?+
The rule addresses personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Separate products-liability doctrines require that the defendant be engaged in the business of selling the product before strict liability attaches, but that element does not substitute for the purposeful targeting needed for jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
529 U.S. 598 (2000)Constitutional Law
…of the federal power; the exceptions prove the rule. Apart from them, proposals to carve islands of state authority out of the stream of commerce power were entirely unsuccessful. Roger Sherman's proposed definition of federal legislative power as excluding "matters of internal police" met Gouverneur Morris's response that "[t]he…
TortsStrict liability and products liability · Claims against manufacturers and other defendants arising out of the manufacture and distribution of products, and defenses to such claimsUBEIntermediate