Full text of the Court's opinion

In Kauffman Racing Equip., LLC v.Roberts, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2551, a 4-2 decision released on June 10, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a resident of another state can be sued in Ohio for making purportedly defamatory Internet posts about an Ohio business. The majority determined that a Knox County trial court erred when it declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over Scott Roberts, a Virginia man who has never physically entered Ohio. Roberts was accused of posting defamatory statements on various websites about Kauffman Racing Equipment (“KRE”), an Ohio business that sold him an allegedly defective automotive product.

“We decline to allow a nonresident defendant to take advantage of the conveniences that modern technology affords and simultaneously be shielded from the consequences of his intentionally tortious conduct,” concluded Justice Pfeifer. The Court reasoned that “jurisdictional jurisprudence must evolve alongside technological developments,” especially when “there is a reasonable expectation that the purposefully inflicted injury will occur in Ohio.”

Applying long-standing law on jurisdiction and defamation, the majority indicated the issues in this case are not unique: “People have been inflicting injury on each other from afar for a long time. Although the Internet may have increased the quantity of these occurrences, it has not created problems that are qualitatively more difficult.”

The Court determined that “Roberts’ Internet commentary reveals a blatant intent to harm KRE’s reputation” and noted that at least five Ohio residents contacted the company after reading the Internet posts. Although KRE does business across the country, the Court stated “its business reputation is centered in Ohio, because Ohio is the location of its sole base of operations.” Thus, the Court concluded the “brunt of the harm” occurred in Ohio.

Justices O’Donnell and Lanzinger dissented, contending that Roberts “neither deliberately engaged in significant activities within Ohio nor purposefully directed his activities at an Ohio resident sufficient to establish minimum contacts and satisfy due process—regardless of his intent.” They also noted that Roberts posted his comments on general auto-racing websites with no specific connection to Ohio.

Of particular concern to the dissent is the potentially broad application of the Court’s ruling: “The majority has ostensibly provided an avenue for any affected Ohioan to sue the originator of any negative Internet post in an Ohio court when the product has been purchased in Ohio and the negative post is read by an Ohio resident.” The dissent asserts this “does not comport with the due process notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Though the Court did not address potential First Amendment issues, the dissent expressed unease, stating that “the practical impact of the majority’s holding in this case is to unnecessarily chill the exercise of free speech.”