Extending “Internet Solutions” to Copyright: Actual Florida Access Now Required for Long-Arm Jurisdiction – Commentary on World Media Alliance Label, Inc. v. Believe SAS

1. Introduction

On 28 July 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit delivered a non-published but highly instructive opinion in World Media Alliance Label, Inc. v. Believe SAS (No. 24-12079).
The dispute pitted World Media Alliance Label, Inc. (“WMA”), a Florida corporation claiming U.S. copyrights in recordings of the Soviet-era pop group Tender May, against Believe SAS (“Believe”), a French digital music distributor that placed forty-four Tender May tracks on YouTube. After WMA voluntarily dismissed co-defendants Google and YouTube, Believe successfully moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court’s dismissal, denial of jurisdictional discovery, and refusal to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) were all affirmed on appeal.

Although unpublished, the decision crystallises several key principles:

An online copyright-infringement plaintiff invoking Fla. Stat. §48.193(1)(a)(2) must plead not only that the infringing material is accessible in Florida but also that it was actually accessed there – extending the Florida Supreme Court’s defamation holding in Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall to copyright claims.
General jurisdiction over a non-U.S. defendant remains exceptional after Daimler AG v. Bauman; bare assertions of economic injury felt by a Florida plaintiff do not suffice.
A perfunctory or “embedded” request for jurisdictional discovery will not compel the court to delay dismissal.
Rule 59(e) cannot be used as a back-door to introduce evidence or arguments that were available prior to judgment.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit, per curiam, affirmed the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal:

No Specific Jurisdiction. WMA failed to allege that Florida residents actually viewed the YouTube videos. Under §48.193(1)(a)(2), “committing a tortious act within Florida” demands both accessibility and actual access.
No General Jurisdiction. Believe’s minimal Florida contacts – essentially none pleaded – fell far short of the “continuous and systematic” threshold. Daimler and Eleventh Circuit precedents compel a narrow view of general jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Discovery Properly Denied. WMA never filed a separate discovery motion and failed to articulate what facts discovery might yield. Without a prima facie jurisdictional showing, discovery is unwarranted.
Rule 59(e) Motion Properly Denied. The 340 pages attached post-judgment contained no new evidence relevant to jurisdiction. Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle to re-argue or patch pleadings.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) – The cornerstone. The Florida Supreme Court held that a non-resident’s defamatory web posting constitutes a “tortious act within Florida” only if the material is both accessible and accessed in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit explicitly transplanted this reasoning to copyright claims, marking the opinion’s most significant doctrinal step.
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) – Cited for the “connexity” requirement linking defendant’s Florida activity to the cause of action and for summarising the dichotomy between specific and general jurisdiction under §48.193.
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) – Provides the modern, restrictive framework for general jurisdiction, demanding the defendant be “at home” in the forum. The court analogised Believe SAS to Daimler: large global footprints do not yield general jurisdiction absent substantial Florida ties.
Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2010); Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) – Additional examples illustrating that even regular business dealings with Florida often fail the general-jurisdiction test.
United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) – Guides denial of discovery where no prima facie jurisdictional allegations exist and when the discovery request is not formally presented.
Butler v. Sukhoi Co., 579 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) – Reaffirms that insufficient jurisdictional pleadings justify denial of discovery.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit applied its two-step personal-jurisdiction analysis: (1) Florida’s long-arm statute and (2) constitutional due process. Because WMA could not cross the first step, the court stopped there.

Specific Jurisdiction.
• Fla. Stat. §48.193(1)(a)(2) – “committing a tortious act within this state.”
• Under Internet Solutions, online torts require evidence of actual in-state access to the offending material.
• WMA’s complaint alleged only that the videos were on YouTube and that WMA lost revenue in Florida. Missing were facts showing that any Floridian clicked “play.”
• Vague assertions and speculation cannot amount to the directed-verdict standard (Madara v. Hall).
General Jurisdiction.
• The “substantial and not isolated activity” clause (§48.193(2)) collapses into the stringent federal “essentially at home” test post-Daimler.
• WMA pled no Florida offices, employees, bank accounts, property, or sales by Believe. Therefore, no continuous and systematic contacts existed.
Jurisdictional Discovery.
• Discovery is not a fishing license. A plaintiff must first lay a jurisdictional foundation.
• WMA’s one-line alternative plea did not qualify as a motion and offered no roadmap of discoverable facts.
Rule 59(e) Standards.
• Relief requires newly discovered evidence or manifest error.
• WMA repackaged previously available material and arguments, running afoul of Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

Broader Application of “Actual Access” Rule. Litigants bringing any web-based tort claim in Florida federal courts—copyright, trademark, privacy, or defamation—must now plead access with specificity or face dismissal at the threshold.
Heightened Pleading Discipline. Plaintiffs can no longer rely on conclusory invocations of internet ubiquity to satisfy long-arm statutes in the Eleventh Circuit.
Discovery Strategy. The opinion sends a cautionary signal: request discovery by separate motion, articulate sought facts, and explain relevance, or the request will be ignored.
Cross-Border Copyright Conflicts. U.S. plaintiffs disputing foreign ownership determinations (here, Russian litigation) cannot evade jurisdictional hurdles merely by pointing to U.S. platform availability.
Forum Selection Considerations. Plaintiffs with weak Florida contacts must evaluate alternative forums or negotiate contractual jurisdiction clauses when dealing with foreign entities.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Specific Personal Jurisdiction: The court can hear a case because the defendant’s case-related activities took place in or targeted the forum state.
General Personal Jurisdiction: The court can hear any claim against the defendant because its overall business presence in the state is so substantial that it is “at home” there.
Florida Long-Arm Statute (Fla. Stat. §48.193): A Florida law listing activities that allow Florida courts to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents—e.g., committing a tortious act in Florida or engaging in substantial business activities.
“Actual Access” Requirement: In online tort cases, the plaintiff must show that at least one Florida user accessed (viewed, downloaded, purchased) the alleged infringing or defamatory content—not merely that it was theoretically available.
Rule 59(e) Motion: A post-judgment motion asking the trial court to alter or amend its judgment. Granted only for new evidence or clear legal error, not to present arguments previously available.
Jurisdictional Discovery: Limited discovery aimed solely at uncovering facts relevant to personal jurisdiction. Courts allow it when the plaintiff makes a colorable showing that such facts exist.

5. Conclusion

World Media Alliance Label, Inc. v. Believe SAS sharpens the jurisdictional lens through which online-infringement cases are viewed in Florida:

Pleading plausibility demands concrete allegations that Floridians actually accessed the contested online content.
Bare bones allegations of revenue loss in Florida or the global reach of platforms like YouTube do not confer specific or general jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional discovery is not automatic; plaintiffs must formally request it and outline its necessity.
Rule 59(e) is confined to correcting genuine errors or considering genuinely new evidence, not curing strategic omissions.

Although unpublished, the ruling is likely to be cited as persuasive authority whenever plaintiffs attempt to bootstrap Florida jurisdiction from mere internet availability. The Eleventh Circuit has now signalled, with clarity, that “clicks matter”: without factual allegations of Floridian clicks, the courthouse doors remain closed.