4. In MAVRIX PHOTO, INC. v. BRAND TECH, INC., 647 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th Cir. 2011), a Florida “celebrity photo” company brought a copyright infringement action in California against an Ohio company for allegedly posting plaintiff’s photographs on a website that had a substantial viewer base in California. Defendant did not market its website in California’s local media, but rather sold website space to third-party advertisers whose ads were directed to California. On this basis, the court found the requisite purposeful availment, emphasizing that defendant had caused harm knowing it would be suffered in California. The court found it “immaterial” for purposeful availment whether defendant or the third-party advertisers targeted the California residents. Is this approach consistent with Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion in McIntyre? Does it properly apply Keeton, p. 118, supra, in the context of a new technology? For a criticism of the Ninth Circuit approach, see Recent Cases, 125 Harv.

L. Rev. 634 (2011).