Rilley v. MoneyMutual LLC
Filed: August 24, 2016, Office of Appellate Courts (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-state company establishes sufficient minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction when it purposefully directs activities at a forum state by sending solicitation emails to known residents of that state and by purchasing geo-targeted online advertising designed to attract customers from that state.
Facts:
- MoneyMutual, LLC operates a website that matches individuals seeking short-term 'payday' loans with lenders in its network, earning a 'lead' fee for each successful match.
- Four Minnesota residents (Respondents) used MoneyMutual’s website to obtain payday loans.
- MoneyMutual sent over 1,000 emails to individuals after they had supplied Minnesota addresses in their online applications; these emails included matching them with lenders, encouraging completion of unfinished applications, and soliciting them for new loans.
- MoneyMutual purchased television advertisements that were part of a 'purely national' campaign, which were seen by Minnesota residents, though MoneyMutual denied specifically targeting local Minnesota broadcasts.
- MoneyMutual purchased Google AdWords advertisements that caused its ads to appear when users searched for terms such as 'payday loan Minnesota' and 'payday loan Minneapolis'.
Procedural Posture:
- Four Minnesota residents filed a class-action complaint against MoneyMutual, LLC in a Minnesota district court (trial court).
- MoneyMutual filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court denied MoneyMutual's motion to dismiss.
- MoneyMutual (as appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the district court's decision.
- MoneyMutual (as appellant) petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court (the state's highest court) for review of the jurisdictional issue, and the petition was granted.
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 an out-of-state company's practice of sending solicitation emails to known state residents and purchasing geo-targeted online advertisements create sufficient minimum contacts with the state to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction consistent with the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Justice
Yes. An out-of-state company that purposefully directs commercial activities at a forum state's residents creates sufficient minimum contacts to support specific personal jurisdiction. MoneyMutual's contacts were not 'random, fortuitous, or attenuated.' The court reasoned that sending over 1,000 emails to applicants whom MoneyMutual knew were Minnesota residents (based on the addresses they provided) constituted purposeful direction of its business activities at the state. This created an 'intertwined' contact with both the residents and the forum itself, making it reasonable for MoneyMutual to anticipate being haled into court there. Similarly, purchasing Google AdWords specifically targeting searches for 'payday loan Minnesota' and 'payday loan Minneapolis' demonstrated a clear intent to solicit business from the Minnesota market. The court distinguished these targeted contacts from MoneyMutual's national television advertising campaign, holding that a purely national campaign not specifically aimed at the forum state cannot, by itself, support personal jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of personal jurisdiction principles to modern e-commerce and digital marketing within Minnesota. It establishes a clear distinction between targeted and untargeted online activities, providing a key precedent for future cases involving internet-based businesses. By holding that geo-targeted advertising (like Google AdWords) and emails to known residents constitute purposeful availment, the court signals that companies cannot escape jurisdiction by merely lacking a physical presence if they actively solicit business in a state. Conversely, the ruling protects companies from jurisdiction based solely on broad, national advertising campaigns that happen to reach a state, aligning with the principles of purposeful direction from cases like J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro.
Unlock the full brief for Rilley v. MoneyMutual LLC