TV Azteca v. Ruiz
490 S.W.3d 29, 59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 391, 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1443 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A foreign broadcaster whose signals are received in a forum state is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in that state if it engages in additional conduct demonstrating an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state. Mere signal spillover and the broadcaster's knowledge of it are insufficient, by themselves, to establish purposeful availment.
Facts:
- Gloria Trevino, a famous Mexican recording artist, was accused of crimes in Mexico in the late 1990s but was ultimately acquitted and all charges were dismissed in 2004.
- After her acquittal, Trevino moved to and became a resident of McAllen, Texas.
- In 2009, Mexican television companies TV Azteca and Publimax, along with news anchor Patricia Chapoy, broadcasted several stories about Trevino and the past scandal on a program called 'Ventaneando'.
- The television signals for these broadcasts originated in Mexico but were viewable over-the-air in parts of South Texas, where Trevino and others watched them.
- In addition to the broadcasts reaching Texas, the Mexican broadcasters engaged in other activities related to the Texas market, including soliciting advertising from Texas businesses, maintaining a production studio in Texas for a period, and promoting their programs within Texas.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria Trevino and Armando Gomez sued TV Azteca, Publimax, and Patricia Chapoy in a Texas trial court in Hidalgo County for defamation and other related torts.
- The defendants, who are Mexican citizens and corporations, filed special appearances objecting to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over them.
- The trial court denied the defendants' special appearances.
- The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court's order denying the special appearances.
- The defendants (as Petitioners) then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
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 Texas court have specific personal jurisdiction over Mexican broadcasters whose television signals originate in Mexico but are viewable in Texas, when those broadcasters also take additional actions to exploit the Texas market for commercial benefit?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boyd
Yes, a Texas court has specific personal jurisdiction in this case. The court held that while the mere fact that broadcast signals spill over from Mexico into Texas is insufficient to establish purposeful availment, even if the broadcasters know it is happening, jurisdiction is proper when there is evidence of 'additional conduct' demonstrating an intent to serve the Texas market. Here, the broadcasters' efforts to solicit advertising from Texas businesses, their physical presence in Texas for promotion and production, and their attempts to expand their Texas audience through distribution deals constitute sufficient additional conduct. This conduct shows they 'continuously and deliberately exploited the Texas market.' Because the defamation claims arise directly from the broadcasts that these business activities were meant to support, and exercising jurisdiction is fair, the broadcasters purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of conducting activities in Texas and are subject to suit there.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for personal jurisdiction over foreign media companies whose content enters a state's territory. The court rejects a rule based on mere foreseeability or signal 'spill-over,' requiring instead concrete evidence that the defendant purposefully targeted the state's market. This 'broadcast-plus' approach provides a more predictable framework for cross-border media disputes, balancing the state's interest in protecting its residents with the due process rights of foreign defendants. The ruling will likely influence future cases involving internet-based media, where content is globally accessible but jurisdiction depends on whether the publisher intentionally targeted a specific forum.
