Prime Example: Fitch v. Wine Express, Online Retailers, and the Need to Reevaluate Personal Jurisdiction in the Age of Amazon

A March 2020 case decided by the Mississippi Supreme Court is an illustrative example of why there is a necessity for a change in the test for personal jurisdiction in instances involving the Internet. Fitch v. Wine Express, Inc. concerned the shipping of alcohol to Mississippi several "wine of the month" companies, online sellers of wine and other alcoholic beverages. The Defendants moved to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Mississippi Supreme Court held that personal jurisdiction was appropriate because the Defendants “purposeful[ly] availed” themselves to Mississippi." The Fitch decision was based on a long line of precedent, the foundation of which was decided in an economy of yesteryear, long before the internet resembled what it is today. In present times, e-commerce makes possible the purchasing of goods worldwide in a matter of seconds possible. At its very essence, personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to bind a defendant to a judgment. The Supreme Court restricted that power to mean that if a defendant is not present in the forum state, a defendant must have “certain minimum contacts within it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” As of 2020, International Shoe is still valid law. Subsequent cases, specifically Zippo and Calder, made attempts to apply International Shoe to the internet era with the creation of new tests, which (inadvertently) created more confusion as to what the rule is when determining personal jurisdiction when the internet is involved. Personal jurisdiction power is fundamental to the United States judicial system, and enabling it to be ubiquitous (or conversely, non-existent and irrelevant, due to it being ubiquitous) defeats the purpose of the doctrine. This comment is to be an analysis of how the doctrine of personal jurisdiction was born, what it is interpreted as today, and in light of those facts, why the Fitch decision is an example of the confusion that the Internet has created in regards to personal jurisdiction.