The judgment MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter. Some remarks on personal jurisdiction on the Internet

• Melian Pérez, Gabriel Ernesto ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad de La Habana

     Universidad de La Habana

     Cuba

     
• Localización: Revista Doctrina Distrital, ISSN-e 2745-2719, Vol. 2, Nº. 1, 2022 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Escenarios jurídicos de relevancia pública - ISSN 2745-2719 -), págs. 180-186
• Idioma: español
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • The competent authority for settling disputes arising on the Internet, as well as the question of the applicable law, are a constant motive of uncertainty due to the cross-border nature of the Internet (Scotti, 2012). In these cases, it becomes complex for network´s users to determine which law should be obeyed or which jurisdiction responds (“contextual legal environment”) (Ramírez Plascencia, 2007).To have caused any harm within the territory is a relatively common rule on which there is a relative consensus. But the criteria for claiming jurisdiction may be broader depending on the location. In this brief analysis, I will focus on one statute from Connecticut, which states that the court where the server is located has jurisdiction to hear the case. In MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter , this issue was contentious.