Arizona Website Operator Subject to Jurisdiction 

in Kentucky

The defendant operated a website known as "thedirty.com" which solicits and publishes "dirt" about individuals posted by visitors to the site.  Plaintiff Sarah Jones was a high school teacher in Kentucky and a member of the BenGals,the cheerleading squad for the Cincinnati Bengals.  In 2009, a visitor to the website posted a message accusing Jones of engaging in promiscuous behavior with Bengal players and, in another, implied that Jones had contracted several STDs from an ex-boyfriend and engaged in sexual activity in several locations at the high school where she worked. After repeated requests to have the content removed, Jones filed suit on December 23, 2009 against Dirty World, LLC, the Arizona-based business responsible for operating the site, alleging defamation,libel per se,false light publicity,and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The defendant's motion to dismiss followed. 

Applying well-settled principles of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence, the Court began by analyzing whether the defendant had purposefully availed itself of the forum state.Citing a Sixth Circuit opinion delineating different categories of websites and the personal jurisdiction standards applied to those sites, the Court held that "thedirty.com," as an interactive website, occupied a middle ground where "the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site."

The Defendant countered by arguing that it only knew of the plaintiff's activities in Ohio as a member of the BenGals, but did not purport to have knowledge of any activities in Kentucky.the Court noted that "in the age of the Internet, specific, targeted conduct may be expressly aimed at a particular individual or entity, despite the fact that the person engaging in the conduct may not know of the geographic location of the individual or entity.'"Not only did the Court find personal jurisdiction proper under principles of due process, but it went on to hold that jurisdiction was independently sufficient under the Calder "effects test."  Based on the theory that the injury in a defamation case occurs where the defamatory material is circulated, the "effects test" confers personal jurisdiction in locations where the brunt of the harm is felt, most often, locations where the defamed individual resides.

http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2011/03/in-a-defamation-suit-against-an-interactive-gossip-websitethe-us-district-court-for-theeastern-district-of-kentuckyheld-th.html#ixzz1Qa1XArE2