The issue of personal jurisdiction over cyber actors is of great importance to consumers and businesses alike who wish to partake in the myriad types of transactions made possible through the Internet. Personal jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to decide a case between the parties. In order for a court to exercise jurisdiction, there must be a statutory or common law source of jurisdiction, which does not surpass the limitations imposed by constitutional due process.

Historically, personal jurisdiction law has changed over time reflecting changes of a more mobile society. Initially, personal jurisdiction would only be found if the party was physically present in the forum state. The U.S. Supreme Court later reformulated this approach to allow jurisdiction over non-resident individuals and entities based on the "minimum contacts" of the out-of-state party.

Compare and contrast the following two proposals for defining personal jurisdiction in cyberspace:(8 pts for each)

1) Personal jurisdiction and choice of law must be determined based on where the server supporting your Web site is located. There are two exceptions to this rule: (a) Consumer transactions are not covered by this rule; and (b) Assertion of jurisdiction to vindicate some social values, such as prevention of child pornography, would be exempt from this rule.

2) A proposal for determining personal jurisdiction in cyberspace by Allan R. Stein: The Unexceptional Problem of Jurisdiction in Cyberspace.pdf

Personal jurisdiction should be based on an analysis of the following three factors: (a) Is the activity directed at a particular forum? Does the forum have a distinguishable and differentiated claim over other forums; (b) The nature of the activity - is it illegal, socially undesirable and the like; and (c) To what extent does the threat of jurisdiction undermine the underlying activity in question, such as electronic commerce?

3) Is there an alternative or propose an alternative to #1 and #2 (4 pts)