Plaintiffs Ayah and Rania Elayyan (the Elayyans) are residents of Indiana. Defendant Sol Melia is a Spanish corporation with its principal place of business in Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Sol Melia manages hotels under a variety of brands, all of which are located outside of the United States. The Elayyans filed a lawsuit against Sol Melia as a result of injuries suffered by Ayah Elayyan while in the pool of the Hotel Melia Puerto Vallarta located in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Sol Melia filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Sol Melia maintained a website which permitted users to make reservations directly with Sol-brand hotels. Potential guests were not charged when they made a reservation but rather paid the hotel upon the commencement of their stay. Sol Melia's website was available in nine languages and targeted a worldwide audience. Guests were also able to make reservations with Sol-brand hotels through third-party websites, such as "www.expedia.com" and www.hotels.com. Sol Melia did not control the content of such websites and did not enter into contracts with guests through these websites.
The Elayyans booked their hotel stay at the Melia Puerto Vallarta through Fantasy Travel, a travel agency located in Gary, Indiana. Sol Melia was not involved in the reservations for or the booking of the Elayyan's vacation package and did not have a contract or agency relationship with Fantasy Travel, nor paid it a commission. The all-inclusive vacation package was offered by Apple Vacations, a vacation-package wholesaler, based in Illinois. Apple Vacations had purchased an allotment of rooms from the owner of the Melia Puerto Vallarta. Sol Melia was not a party to the purchase agreement.
1. On what basis did the court hold that Sol Media had insufficient minimum contacts with Indiana such as to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction?
2. Is the court's focus on the interactivity of Sol Media's website valid? What factors determine whether the website is passive, interactive or transactional?
3. Is the Internet sufficiently different from non-electronically based businesses to merit different treatment for purposes of jurisdiction? Why or why not?