2. The Supreme Court did not disturb the California court’s finding that “Asahi knew that some of the valve assemblies sold to Cheng Shin would be incorporated into tire tubes sold in California.” Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 35, 53, 216 Cal.Rptr.

385, 392 (1985). Under Part II A of Justice O’Connor’s opinion, this knowledge alone could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction unless Asahi had taken some further action “purposefully directed toward the forum state.” What additional action might show a company’s intent to serve a particular state’s market? Does this approach allow the nonresident manufacturer of a component part to avoid the safety standards of states in which the final product is sold?

How would the Asahi plurality respond to this concern?