Stanford Center for Internet and Society

In Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia (decided September 12, 2008), the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the felony conviction of notorious spammer Jeremy Jaynes, as well as its own earlier decision upholding Jaynes’ conviction. Jaynes appealed his conviction on two principle grounds: first, that the Virginia trial court lacked personal jurisdiction, since he had conducted all his spamming activities in Raleigh, North Carolina; and second, that the statute restricted the First Amendment right to anonymous speech, and therefore was invalid. The court rejected Jaynes’ argument on jurisdiction, but reversed the conviction on the ground that the underlying statute was overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. As Justice Agee writing for the majority observed, the statute was drafted in such a way that “were the Federalist Papers just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the statute.”

Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia

In a fraud and conspiracy suit filed by investors in an apparent pyramid scheme, a District of Columbia District Court held an interactive website with demos but no actual online investment services insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation with only one identified in-forum customer. That the Defendant “could” transact business did not establish that it in fact “did” systemically and continuously transact business in the District, making the exercise of general jurisdiction inconsistent with constitutional due process. The Court further found insufficient minimum contacts relating to the investment scheme by the Defendant or its alleged conspirator for either specific, conspiracy, or RICO jurisdiction.

FC Investment Group v. IFX Markets, Ltd, No. 04-1939 (PLF), 2007 WL 325355 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2007)