Passive Online Disclosures & Unsworn Declarations: Ex parte GBC International Bank Clarifies Specific Jurisdiction in Alabama

Introduction

On 27 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Alabama handed down Ex parte GBC International Bank, SC-2024-0778, granting a writ of mandamus and directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss Michael Straus’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case arises from a failed $60,000 wire transfer to an account at GBC International Bank (“GBC”) allegedly controlled by a fraudulent third party, Apex Oil and Gas Trading, LLC.

The dispute centred on whether Alabama courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state bank based on (i) a single wire transfer initiated by an Alabama resident and (ii) general compliance statements posted on the bank’s publicly accessible website. In denying jurisdiction, the Court simultaneously addressed the evidentiary standard for rebutting a prima facie jurisdictional showing, holding that unsworn declarations are inadequate to carry the plaintiff’s burden.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Bryan, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded that:

1. GBC made an unrebutted prima facie evidentiary showing that it lacked the minimum contacts necessary for Alabama to assert specific jurisdiction.
2. Straus failed to meet his responsive burden because his declaration was unsworn and therefore not “competent evidence.”
3. Even if the declaration were considered, passive website language referencing the USA PATRIOT Act and a single plaintiff-initiated wire transfer do not constitute “purposeful availment” under due-process standards.
4. The Circuit Court therefore erred; the writ of mandamus compelling dismissal was warranted.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Ex parte Alamo Title Co. (2013) – Reaffirmed that Alabama’s long-arm rule extends only to the limits of federal due process; provided the basic two-part test for minimum contacts and fair play.
• Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc. (2003) – Established that a defendant’s passive website or isolated sale initiated by the plaintiff does not amount to purposeful availment; heavily relied upon to analogise GBC’s website.
• Ex parte AutoSource Motors, LLC (2014) – Applied Troncalli to an internet advertisement; provided a factual template nearly identical to the present case (single sale, passive site, plaintiff travel, etc.).
• Ex parte Puccio (2005) – Held that unsworn affidavits are not competent evidence under Rule 56(e); transplanted here to Rule 12(b)(2) disputes, confirming that plaintiffs must provide sworn proof to rebut a jurisdictional challenge.
• Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc. (2004) & Ex parte Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. (2025) – Quoted for the procedural burden-shifting framework once a defendant offers competent evidence.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the following analytical steps:

1. Prima Facie Showing by Defendant. GBC’s CFO affidavit attested to absence of Alabama contacts: no registration, property, advertising, employees, deposits, or targeted solicitation in Alabama. Under Alabama precedent, such an affidavit establishes a prima facie lack of minimum contacts.
2. Burden Shift to Plaintiff. Once prima facie evidence is produced, the plaintiff must put forth sworn affidavits or other competent evidence establishing contacts. Straus offered only an unsworn declaration.
3. Competency of Evidence. Citing Puccio, the Court held the unsworn declaration legally insufficient; it could not rebut GBC’s showing.
4. Alternative Merits Analysis. Assuming arguendo the declaration were valid, the content still fell short. Two key facts were highlighted:
   • The $60,000 wire transfer was unilaterally initiated by Straus; unilateral activity of the plaintiff cannot create jurisdiction.
   • The Patriot-Act language on GBC’s website was passive and of nationwide, not Alabama-specific, scope; passive internet postings mirror nationally distributed advertisements, which do not equal purposeful availment.
5. Fair Play & Substantial Justice. Absent minimum contacts, the Court did not need to reach the second due-process prong, but implicitly noted the burden and lack of Alabama interest weighed against jurisdiction.

3. Impact of the Decision

The ruling tightens Alabama’s jurisdictional gate in three distinct ways:

1. Passive Web Content. Generic compliance statements—even those invoking national security statutes—do not create a “clear, firm nexus” with Alabama when no Alabama-targeted conduct exists.
2. Evidentiary Rigor. Plaintiffs opposing Rule 12(b)(2) motions must provide sworn affidavits or similarly competent evidence. Unsworn declarations, even if made “under penalty of perjury,” are insufficient unless notarised or otherwise authorised under 28 U.S.C. §1746 (which was not invoked here).
3. Financial-Services Litigation. Out-of-state banks facing suits over wire transfers initiated by Alabama residents now have a powerful precedent to defeat personal jurisdiction absent Alabama-directed marketing or continuing relationships.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Personal Jurisdiction: A court’s power to make decisions affecting a defendant. Without it, any judgment is void.
• Specific vs. General Jurisdiction: Specific relates to the lawsuit’s immediate facts; general applies when a defendant’s overall activities are “continuous and systematic.” Only specific jurisdiction was argued here.
• Purposeful Availment: The defendant must have chosen to engage with the forum state in a way that would foreseeably subject it to suit there. The doctrine protects parties from being dragged into foreign courts due to another’s unilateral actions.
• Prima Facie Showing: An initial, minimally sufficient showing by evidence that shifts the burden to the opposing side.
• Passive Website: A site that merely provides information, with no interactive features aimed at consummating transactions or forming ongoing relationships.
• Writ of Mandamus: An extraordinary appellate remedy compelling a lower court to take (or refrain from) a specific action when the petitioner has a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy.

Conclusion

Ex parte GBC International Bank re-articulates and modestly extends Alabama’s jurisprudence on personal jurisdiction. By holding that (1) passive online compliance statements do not amount to purposeful availment, and (2) only sworn, competent evidence can rebut a defendant’s prima facie showing, the Court affirms a strict, evidence-driven approach to jurisdictional challenges. Litigants must now marshal notarised or statutorily compliant affidavits and demonstrate more than isolated, plaintiff-initiated contacts when suing out-of-state entities in Alabama. The decision safeguards due-process limitations, provides clarity to businesses operating nationwide via the internet, and signals that Alabama courts will not extend their reach without concrete, directed conduct toward Alabama residents.