Server Location Alone Does Not Create Specific Personal Jurisdiction:  Robert Carbone v. Wulf Kaal, 25a0161p.06 (6th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In Robert Carbone v. Wulf Kaal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed a novel jurisdictional question arising out of the world of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and internet-based defamation: Does the mere presence of an Ohio-hosted web server, through which allegedly defamatory statements “pass,” suffice to subject out-of-state defendants to personal jurisdiction in Ohio? The parties were strangers to Ohio in every practical sense: the plaintiff resided in Connecticut, the principal individual defendants in Illinois, California, and Switzerland, and the two defendant DAOs were Swiss entities. Ohio’s only connection was that third-party web developers happened—without direction from the defendants—to park the DAOs’ websites on servers located in Ohio.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that specific personal jurisdiction cannot be based solely on the fortuitous routing of internet communications through an in-state server not deliberately selected by the defendants. The ruling supplies a clear bright-line principle for cases involving cloud computing, DAOs, and other distributed technologies.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The district court lacked personal jurisdiction over any defendant.
  • No defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting in Ohio.
  • Carbone’s causes of action did not “arise from” defendants’ activities in Ohio.
  • Because the first two prongs of the Sixth Circuit’s specific-jurisdiction test were unmet, the court did not reach the “reasonableness” prong.
  • The judgment of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) was affirmed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  1. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) – foundational “minimum contacts” doctrine; cited to frame due-process analysis.
  2. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) – emphasized that contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not “random, fortuitous, or attenuated.”
  3. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) – “effects” test for intentional torts; used to contrast situations where the forum is the focal point of both the story and the harm.
  4. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) – limited Calder; held that the defendant’s own contacts—not the plaintiff’s connections—control.
  5. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021) – restated that contacts must create a “substantial connection” with the forum.
  6. Sixth Circuit precedents:
    • Blessing v. Chandrasekhar, 988 F.3d 889 (2021) – tweets about Kentucky students; no targetting of Kentucky, no jurisdiction.
    • Johnson v. Griffin, 85 F.4th 429 (6th Cir. 2023) – tweets referencing Tennessee sources and harms; jurisdiction upheld.
  7. Out-of-Circuit persuasive authorities: MacDermid v. Deiter, 702 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2012) and Will Co. v. Lee, 47 F.4th 917 (9th Cir. 2022), both distinguished because those defendants directed misconduct at the forum whereas the Carbone defendants did not.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

  1. Specific Jurisdiction Framework The panel applied the familiar Sixth Circuit three-prong test (Southern Machine): (1) purposeful availment, (2) “arising from,” and (3) reasonableness.
  2. Purposeful Availment The court held that the defendants’ only Ohio “contact”—passive use of Ohio-based servers selected by independent contractors—was not a deliberate act invoking Ohio’s laws or benefits. This position leverages Walden and Burger King: an in-state server location is “random, fortuitous, attenuated.”
  3. Effects Doctrine Rejected The alleged defamation was aimed at a Connecticut resident, consumed (if at all) outside Ohio, and had no Ohio focal point. By contrast, Calder applied where the target, readership, and reputational harm all centered in California.
  4. “Arises-From” Requirement Even under the Sixth Circuit’s “lenient” standard, the plaintiff could not tie Ohio contacts to the cause of action: the actionable conduct was the composition and dissemination of statements, not the mechanical routing through a server.
  5. Rejection of “Server-Plus” Theory Carbone’s invitation to adopt a “server + something more” test (actual/constructive knowledge and economic benefit) was declined. The court emphasized that none of the defendants themselves chose the server location, nor derived forum-specific benefit.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Litigation

  • Limits Forum Shopping in Internet Torts Plaintiffs cannot bootstrap jurisdiction merely by tracing packets through data centers housed in their preferred forum.
  • Guidance for DAO and Web3 Entities DAOs often rely on globally dispersed infrastructure. The decision reassures DAO participants that back-end server placements—often outside their control—will not automatically expose them to suit nationwide.
  • Cloud-Computing Infrastructure For hosting providers and SaaS vendors, Ohio server racks no longer represent a litigation magnet in the Sixth Circuit.
  • Split with Second and (Old) Ninth Circuits Narrowed To the extent MacDermid and the former Ninth Circuit rule permitted jurisdiction where a defendant knowingly exploited an in-forum server, the Sixth Circuit charts a more restrictive path. The Ninth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Briskin v. Shopify, 135 F.4th 739 (2025), partially overruling Will Co., suggests a nationwide convergence toward the Sixth Circuit’s view.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction
The court’s power to bind a defendant with its judgment. It comes in two forms: General (defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum) and Specific (lawsuit relates to the defendant’s forum contacts).
Purposeful Availment
The defendant must intentionally exploit or benefit from the forum’s laws, not be dragged in through happenstance.
Arises-From or Relates-To
The lawsuit must be linked (though not necessarily caused) by the defendant’s forum contacts. The Sixth Circuit treats this prong leniently, but still requires more than a tangential connection.
Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO)
An entity governed by smart contracts on a blockchain, usually without traditional legal domicile, complicating questions of jurisdiction and service of process.
Server Location Fallacy
A misconception that physical placement of servers in a state alone establishes jurisdiction. Carbone rejects this.

5. Conclusion

Carbone v. Kaal stands for a straightforward yet powerful rule: the fortuitous storage of data on an in-state server is not, by itself, a constitutionally sufficient contact for specific personal jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning re-centers the “purposeful” nature of contacts in the digital age, curtails forum shopping in internet defamation suits, and provides much-needed predictability for technology enterprises whose infrastructure spans multiple jurisdictions. Going forward, plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit must identify deliberate, forum-directed conduct—not mere technological happenstance—before haling out-of-state defendants into local courts.