Johnson v. Huffingtonpost.com
Not available in text (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident online publisher in a libel case, the publisher must have specifically 'aimed' the allegedly defamatory content at the forum state. Merely operating a nationally accessible, ad-supported website that derives revenue from the forum state's residents is insufficient to establish purposeful availment.
Facts:
- Charles Johnson is a resident of Texas.
- TheHuffingtonpost.com, Inc. (HuffPost) is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in New York.
- In January 2019, HuffPost published an article on its website that labeled Johnson a 'Holocaust-Denying White Nationalist.'
- The HuffPost website and the article were freely and continuously available to readers in Texas.
- HuffPost utilizes an ad-driven business model, deriving revenue by tracking the location of its users, including Texas residents, to sell targeted advertising.
- HuffPost has contracts with advertisers in Texas and runs ads specifically geared to the Texas market.
- Johnson alleged he suffered reputational injury in Texas as a result of the article's publication.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Johnson filed a libel lawsuit against TheHuffingtonpost.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- HuffPost filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court (trial court) granted HuffPost's motion to dismiss.
- Johnson appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Johnson as the appellant and HuffPost as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-resident online news publication purposefully avail itself of a forum state, creating specific personal jurisdiction for a libel suit, when its only contacts are the website's national accessibility, an ad-driven business model that profits from forum residents, and the plaintiff's residence and injury occurring in that state?
Opinions:
Majority - The panel majority (King or Smith)
No. A non-resident online news publication does not purposefully avail itself of the forum state under these circumstances. The panel held that the Supreme Court's precedent in Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., which found jurisdiction over a print publisher based on its regular circulation in a state, should not be 'woodenly applied' to internet publications because 'websites are different.' The court characterized Texans accessing the website as a unilateral activity of third parties, not a contact created by HuffPost. It found HuffPost’s ad-related contacts—such as tracking Texas users and running Texas-specific ads—to be 'irrelevant' to the libel claim, which arose from the article's content, not the advertising. The majority concluded that to establish jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show the publisher specifically 'aimed the alleged libel at Texas,' which was not demonstrated here.
Dissenting - Judge Haynes
Yes. A non-resident online publication does purposefully avail itself of the forum state under these circumstances. The dissent argued that the majority's refusal to apply Keeton to online publications creates a new, unsupported distinction in personal jurisdiction law and splits with other circuit courts. It reasoned that HuffPost's business model, which relies on attracting a large audience from populous states like Texas to generate advertising revenue, is the 'modern equivalent' of Hustler magazine deliberately circulating its print copies in New Hampshire. By deliberately exploiting the Texas market for commercial gain, HuffPost should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there for libel claims arising from its content.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent within the Fifth Circuit that heightens the standard for establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state online media companies. By distinguishing online publications from print media and requiring a showing that content was specifically 'aimed' at the forum state, the ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue for libel in their home states. This creates a circuit split with the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, which have held that an ad-driven business model targeting a national audience is sufficient to show purposeful availment in states where a website has a substantial audience. The decision may force plaintiffs to litigate libel claims in the publisher's home state, increasing costs and potentially chilling such claims.
